[Inexorable]

Art is the opposite of ideology. Both in creation and appreciation. Only a jingoistic socialist or right-wing anti-communist appreciator of Ayn Rand or the Left Behind series would think otherwise. Human ideology, from the basic concept of thirsting for a drink of water to thirsting for social justice is the antithesis of art. All ideology has been a lie including the drink of water. If truth exists at all it finds it's way into the world through art in spite of ideology. If you plant your muse in ideology you will never find, much less appreciate great art.

I disagree strongly, and as a caveat to this discussion, I am reminded of a great essay on the meaning of art (in the following case, literature) in its relation to politicial transgression.

Bataille's position couldn't be more different: he insists on literature being impossible. For Bataille, literature could only have meaning if it was transgressive, that is if it crossed moral boundaries while affirming them. Literature would only be meaningful if it were forbidden.

According to Bataille, this exclusion is the perverse and paradoxical reason why Communist society corresponds better than any other to the secret wishes of a writer like Kafka - who always harbored a desire for a society that denied him the right to exist".

Much of Euronymous' extremism can be understood as an impossible rebellion against a social democrat utopia, as the result of a desire to provoke this utopia into denying him the right to exist. Isn't expressing admiration for brutally repressive totalitarian regimes a transgression of the values of social democracy? In fact, the crudeness with which Euronymous expresses his ideas may in itself be a form of rebellion.

from: http://surrealdocuments.blogspot.com/20 ... kafka.html

In a sense I think Bataille has a point. What good is art if it fails to communicate something forbidden? Entertaining films, books, music, paintings and even video games often stir us to emotional highs because they express or celebrate something we are supposed to be opposed to. I don't see the Terminator because it teaches me the lessons of peace, equality, and progressive politics, I see it because its an action packed adventure with with destruction and struggle. I don't enjoy De Sade because its a great treatise on the dignity of women and the missionary position, I enjoy it because its demented and perverse and celebrates things I would never do.

Obviously this method doesn't apply to all things. I can still enjoy Mass in B Minor without it being controversial or extreme, just as I can enjoy Bernini's less lewd sculptures. But keeping with the topic at hand, I would say that all ART IS POLITICAL, in that it expresses a position on politics in favor or in opposition to society, even when appearing neutral or unrelated to such concerns.

[NoRapture]

I am reminded of a great essay on the meaning of art (in the following case, literature) in its relation to politicial transgression.

Ideology changes in reaction to visionary artists and great art, not the other way around. Political climates have permeated the world with blood and heartache since Charlemagne and before. Great art is a rarity. It is not The Terminator.

[Potemkin]

Ideology changes in reaction to visionary artists and great art, not the other way around.

You seem to have a rather limited definition of the word 'ideology', NoRapture.

[Inexorable]

Ideology changes in reaction to visionary artists and great art, not the other way around. Political climates have permeated the world with blood and heartache since Charlemagne and before. Great art is a rarity. It is not The Terminator.

While I'm not necessarily disagreeing here, I would like to hear of some of your examples of great art and why the political climate somehow changes in reaction to great art. I guess I could see some examples, such as Sibelius formenting the Finnish revolution, but I think it was mostly tributary.

[Dave]

If the failure of the communist state has proven anything it is its all encompassing artlessness.

[NoRapture]

... I would like to hear of some of your examples of great art and why the political climate somehow changes in reaction to great art.

Well. How about Pythagorus's notion of the existence of harmony? Since harmony, before Pythagorus, did not exist in any natural form at all. He created an instrument with which to make harmony instantly. Albeit limited harmony, still harmony. The beginning of a music form that men, the first monks took to natural amphitheaters and caves now that they had the proper recipe of pitch to recreate it. In the beginning it had a magical, emotionally evocative effect. The major third harmony was initially banned by early religious orders for inciting riots of dancing and disorder. These amphitheaters soon inspired man-made cathedrals and a new form of math that real Western architecture grew out of. These men became monks and associates of Christian science out of which grew astronomy and all sorts of mathematical endeavors into science. Western culture did contain some very enlightening and nurturing advances for men despite Qatz's constant, bigoted harangue of total oppression and collective Jewish corruption. Unfortunately bigotry could be dramatized with the same harmony that music could.

[Potemkin]

Well. How about Pythagorus's notion of the existence of harmony? Since harmony, before Pythagorus, did not exist in any natural form at all.

Actually, it did. Greek musicians had been creating harmonies (and probably even discords) since prehistoric times. Pythagoras was the first to mathematically analyse those harmonies. This mathematical analysis proved extremely fruitful on a practical level too - more efficient musical instruments were built which followed Pythagoras' systematised theory of music. But what does this have to do with changing ideologies?

Oh, and Communist regimes produced some of the greatest art ever created. Granted, some of it was created in opposition to those regimes, but whatever.

[NoRapture]

But what does this have to do with changing ideologies?

Western math and science grew out of the amphitheater environments that monks first gathered in to recreate Pythagorus's harmony intervals. Eventually creating the first cathedrals for the purposes of chanted music. Both religion itself and science took footing and grew from these beginnings. I view Pythagorus through the haze of antiquity as a musician first, mathematician out of artistic necessity. So do many other historians.

And yes, primitive harmony happened coincidentally many times through nature and human serendipity. The legend has it that Pythagorus used to lie outside a blacksmith center and listen for the harmonies that clanged periodically by accident.

[Potemkin]

Western math and science grew out of the amphitheater environments that monks first gathered in to recreate Pythagorus's harmony intervals. Eventually creating the first cathedrals for the purposes of music.

Cathedrals were not created for the purpose of making music. They were not the medieval version of concert halls.

Both religion itself and science took footing and grew from these beginnings.

No, they didn't. Both religion and science existed before Pythagoras.

I view Pythagorus through the haze of antiquity as a musician first, mathematician out of artistic necessity. So do many other historians.

In antiquity, philosophers did not make the artificial distinctions between academic subjects which are made nowadays, mainly for administrative purposes. Pythagoras would have probably been puzzled by your idea that he had to choose between being a mathematician or being a musicologist.

[NoRapture]

Both religion and science existed before Pythagoras.

This is not what I am arguing. I'm arguing that great leaps in ideology grew out of art, music. Which in turn had great effect on science. Does your discussion ever go beyond rank denial? If not I'm getting bored. If you view my thoughts as narrow it could be because that little booth of authority you're locked in is so cramped. You should step out every once in awhile, stand on a hill and see where your mind might go. If you dare.

[DanDaMan]

This is not what I am arguing. I'm arguing that great leaps in ideology grew out of art, music. Which in turn had great effect on science. Does your discussion ever go beyond rank denial? If not I'm getting bored. If you view my thoughts as narrow it could be because that little booth of authority you're locked in is so cramped. You should step out every once in awhile, stand on a hill and see where your mind might go. If you dare.

Art and music are painted reflections, by poets and perverts, of society they see. Leaps in ideology were done by those exploiting ideas of social change. Most based on envy of what another man has. The other half to thwart tyranny.

[Potemkin]

This is not what I am arguing. I'm arguing that great leaps in ideology grew out of art, music. Which in turn had great effect on science.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow your argument. First, you claimed that art is not ideological and that it 'transcends' ideology (without explaining exactly how it manages this feat), but now you seem to be arguing that art can have an ideological effect on its audience and on society, but again without explaining how it would manage to do so without itself being ideological.

Does your discussion ever go beyond rank denial? If not I'm getting bored. If you view my thoughts as narrow it could be because that little booth of authority you're locked in is so cramped. You should step out every once in awhile, stand on a hill and see where your mind might go. If you dare.

I have explained my position in some detail. You are free to disagree with that position but, as is often the case with you, you seem to have quickly descended into personal insults and arrogant posturing.

[NoRapture]

...you seem to have quickly descended into personal insults and arrogant posturing.

Maybe impatience is a better description. You seem to willfully ignore what I write.

Cathedrals were not created for the purpose of making music.

And this is not what I wrote or implied. I said that natural amphitheaters were sought out for the primitive chanting of monks in the early onset of christianity. I said that the popularity of these early gatherings flourished greatly because of Pythagorus's development of music integrals and harmony, which necessitated a more advanced mathematics. I said that later justinian architecture evolved out of this growing, religious culture. This is very basic history. And to say that cathedrals were not created for music very much misses the point. For one thing they were, in a great number of ways, created exactly for music among a growing number of the other uses found within a quickly evolving culture of religious importance during the period.

Just write the word no. It's quicker and no more revealing of any thought process.

[Potemkin]

And this is not what I wrote or implied.

Actually, it was: "Eventually creating the first cathedrals for the purposes of music." Recognise that sentence?

I said that natural amphitheaters were sought out for the primitive chanting of monks in the early onset of christianity. I said that the popularity of these early gatherings flourished greatly because of Pythagorus's development of music integrals and harmony, which necessitated a more advanced mathematics.

Actually, Pythagoras did not have to develop any new mathematics in order to analyse music. The existing mathematics was entirely sufficient.

I said that later justinian architecture evolved out of this growing, religious culture. This is very basic history. And to say that cathedrals were not created for music very much misses the point. For one thing they were, in a great number of ways, created exactly for music among a growing number of the other uses found within a quickly evolving culture of religious importance during the period.

Cathedrals were created (in the minds of their designers and builders) primarily as places of worship. Music was regarded as an integral part of that worship, but was a secondary rather than a primary consideration.

Oh, and his name was Pythagoras, not 'Pythagorus'.

Just write the word no. It's quicker and no more revealing of any thought process.

No.

[NoRapture]

Music was regarded as an integral part of that worship, but was a secondary rather than a primary consideration.

Wrong. Do you really think justinian cathedrals appeared whole on the landscape of the Dark Ages? The natural amphitheaters and primitive man-made edifices that preceded what we call cathedrals were chosen for their ambience by the shamans and monks who chanted within them. And eventually sang the harmonies and integrals created from nature, and inspired mathematics of Pythagoras. And were eventually motivated to revolutionize human thought and christianity. Regardless of spelling.

[Huntster]

Quote:
As Eisenstein pointed out...

Eisenstein was a propagandist.

Then, at least in that regard, you've chosen your avatar well.

The difference is that Einstein was also gifted and smart................

.....And old.

How old are you?

[Potemkin]

Eisenstein is not Einstein.

[Huntster]

And NoRapture isn't Einstein.

[Potemkin]

Cheerfully conceded.

[NoRapture]

And NoRapture isn't Einstein. Cheerfully conceded...

You two seem evenly matched for some really exciting discussion on the subject of art. Two authoritarianist ideologues comparing the beauty of the USSR's industrial revolution to the symbolism of The Terminator and Ronald Reagan's mighty defeat of communism.