From: dstein@phobos.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Subject: Re: Uncritical thought (was: Unintelligentsia (was: Re: Spider...))
Reply-To: dstein@phobos.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 05:55:23 GMT

In article <1g2hy8#5fP48x2ncdCb0R4VCW2r2DGl=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>,
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
|> In <1992Apr5.135207.11266@math.ucla.edu> David Stein wrote:
|> >    You really do make very sweeping and vague statements yet provide no
|> >    evidence.
|> 
|> What would you accept as `evidence'?

   Examples, references, or at least breaking down the general assertion
   into more specific statements -- that would suffice.

|> That's more detail than I can go into without going back to primary and
|> secondary sources; I don't keep all this information swapped in.  Sorry, but
|> this discussion isn't high enough on my priority list right now for me
|> to do that.  If that means I `lose', so be it.

   If it were a serious discussion, I would not suggest that type of an
argument.
   But if I say "The 60's rock generation was a bunch of drug addicts,"
I should
   be able to name 10 leading rock musicians who were heavily into drugs at the
   time. (And I could :-).
   So I was hoping at least for a superficial evidence from you.
  
|> >    First, the way you throw in Marxism, Socialist Realism, and "decadent
|> >    modern attitude" smacks of the way many .... [cut for brevity]
 
|> I don't understand why you think I merit this criticism.  

   I admit I should not have drawn the parallel so closely.

|>                                                             I have
not claimed
|> that the Western `art-lit' culture was all Bolsheviks, that's obvious
nonsense.
|> I have merely observed that for a long time, its politics was dominated by
|> Marxist assumptions and ideas.  Some members were `hard-left' some were
|> socialist, some were social-democratic.  It's not making any judgement about
|> these ideas to call them Marxist.

   But there's a hell of a difference between saying that some ideas are
   influenced by Marx and saying that someone or some movement is/are Marxist.
   Marx was rather prolific, and used/popularized many ideas which absolutely
   didn't originate with him.   
       
|> You're mistaken in your belief that I "dismiss these schools on ideological
|> grounds".  I criticize them on grounds of arrogance and deliberate rejection
|> of the communicative function of art, but I don't see this as having been
|> *caused* by their politics, only *correlated* with it.

   Arrogance might be an integral part of Dada, but I fail to see that often
   repeated "deliberate rejection of the communicative function of art."
   Isn't the whole purpose of Surrealism and Dada and Expressionism, etc., to
   *communicate?*  Why do you think it is not so?
   
   And are there any modern artists who DO care about communication?
   Who are they?  

|>  
|> > And about half of the artists who actively and vocally opposed the regime 
|> > in Czechoslovakia would probably fit well into your "Marxist" register.
|>  
|> What conflict is there between this fact and any of my previous claims?

   It indicates that your "register" is too big.  Many don't think they are
   Marxists, but you might call them so because of their art or beliefs.
   (Assuming you'll apply your stated labels.)
 
|> Actually, I think I'm beginning to get it.  I'm using "Marxist" in an
|> objective, historical sense, and you're hearing the term "Marxist"
the way it's
|> used by conservative American politicians, as a club.

   Forget the "objective" part -- you are haphazardly calling movements or   
   artistic tendencies "Marxist" simply by historical association of people
   or ideas. 
      
|> Sure.  Actually *living* under "scientific socialism" was wonderfully
|> enlightening, I'm sure.  
       
   The break came *before* the communists took power -- twenty years so.
 
|> If its chroniclers are to be believed, Surrealism went through an intensely
|> Bolshevist phase in the late '20s and early '30s under Andre Breton's
|> influence.  It shed the Bolshevism but never lost a debt to Marxist
|> revolutionary theory (cf. the emphasis on using art to challenge the false
|> consciousness of the middle class).

   Breton was no more Surrealism then Picasso was Cubism.  I think you tend to
   overestimate political foundations of an artistic movement. 
    
|> Yes, Dada is long dead.  Sigh.  And you could "make a case" for Dada's being
|> damn near *anything*; that was part of its charm...

   Not in political terms.  Make an argument for it being anything else then
   anarchistic.

   Surrealism, is deeply individualistic.  Maybe you are confusing style and
   content, if the distinction can be made, when you accuse Surrealism of not
   caring about communication.  Expressing one's dreams, in the way you have 
   actually experienced them, is hard.  
   
   Artistic movements will have political implications.  Dada will never be 
   liked by order worshiping ideologies.  Surrealism will be suspect in any 
   "serve the masses" society.

   And Democracy will like any art movement -- once it's dead.   

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Czech.
================================ - David - =======================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written