Are tyrants good for art?

[Max Nemtsov]

i don't intend to _knock_ them, and i realize that good art blooms in 
confrontation (but not necessarily)
i rather doubt idealizing the role of tyrants

On 13.08.2012 13:12, Joe Allonby wrote:
> Artists have to make a living too, even if it's not what they intended
> from the get go.
>
> I'm sure that Profokiev would have been happier composing and
> conducting symphonies instead of soundtracks for propaganda films.
> Bulgakov worked as a stagehand when he wasn't writing novels that were
> banned by his biggest fan Stalin. Or writing plays that were closed
> after one performance.
>
> I wouldn't knock the Soviet artists too hard. They were struggling to
> make art under an oppressive regime that sought to use them as
> propaganda pawns.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Max Nemtsov <max.nemtsov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> hm, a hectic mix
>> and, this list covers at least 3 different tyrants, with different
>> degrees of tightening screws on art (not to mention, several works from
>> it are specimens of pre-ordered propaganda art). and, this is cinema
>> which, according to the greatest moviegoer of all times, named
>> Ulyanov-Lenin, was nothing better for the masses than circus, so of
>> course it thrived under the Soviets, why shouldn't it. and it
>> disproportionately veers towards one director
>> try to take instead, something like a typical annual output of Soviet
>> film studios of mid-seventies, and see how many gems you could find.
>> then, let's talk art
>> Mx
>>
>> jesus, i just adore people nostalgic for the soviet era, it's like the
>> 60s. have you lived there?
>>
>>
>> On 12.08.2012 23:14, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>>> Battleship Potemkin (1925)
>>> Alexander Nevsky (1938)
>>> The Cranes are Flying (1957)
>>> Ivan's Childhood (1962)
>>> Andrei Rublev (1966)
>>> Stalker (1979)
>>> Come and See (1985)
>>>
>>> And for all of its repressive structures in place, Iran has a great cinema
>>> movement.
>>>
>>> Laura
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Joe Allonby <joeallonby at gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Aug 12, 2012 1:08 PM
>>>> To: Alex Colter <recoignishon at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>, pynchon -l
>>>> <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Are tyrants good for art?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oRbStmxvm4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Alex Colter <recoignishon at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "It's because traditional tyrants left a good deal of freedom in
>>>>> society.
>>>>> Ancient China wasn't anything like a modern democracy, but it produced
>>>>> some
>>>>> of the greatest art there's ever been, while Mao's China produced
>>>>> nothing.
>>>>> Tsarist Russia contained many kinds of discrimination and injustice, but
>>>>> in
>>>>> the late 19th and early 20th Century it was in the vanguard of
>>>>> literature,
>>>>> painting, music and dance. The Soviet Union produced little that was
>>>>> even
>>>>> remotely comparable. The arts flourished in the empire of the Habsburgs,
>>>>> while Nazism produced Leni Riefenstahl's repugnant and much over-rated
>>>>> Triumph of the Will. Whereas authoritarian regimes leave much of society
>>>>> alone, totalitarianism aims to control everything. Invariably, the
>>>>> result is
>>>>> a cultural desert."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Dave Monroe
>>>>> <against.the.dave at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Culture thrives on conflict and antagonism, not social harmony - a
>>>>>> point made rather memorably by a certain Harry Lime, says philosopher
>>>>>> John Gray.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19202527
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Gray
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>