Fwd: Re: Are tyrants good for art?

Mon Aug 13 12:23:54 CDT 2012

Politics might hijack art, but political art just, well, sucks as art.
Tyranny? Where is tyranny absent?

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Max Nemtsov <max.nemtsov at gmail.com> wrote:

>  right. right. hardship strengthens the soul. no matter who oppresses
> you, hollywood or gulag, pardon me for those cliches
> we all have our warm memories about our soviet past when the grass was
> greener (however, 1998 seems like not it, it was more of yeltsin's break in
> that ethnically hereditary tyranny we're still having here with those two
> revolting clowns replacing each other now and then), and, for tourists, it
> might be especially dear. but please mind, in this country all real good
> art, be it tarkovsky, klimov or whoever in other venues or genres, has
> always existed neither thanks to nor in opposition to power (there are
> exceptions, of course, but they are, well, exceptions, etc.) it has always
> been totally parallel to to the regime, not even on the same plane with it.
> i suspect, it happens everywhere but can speak only from my experience in
> this country. if a tyranny is instrumental in creating good art, it may be
> so in a very, very roundabout way. to say it is "good" for anything apart
> from corruption and suffering is, well, stretching the truth ideologically.
> of course, i'm prejudiced against it, i've spent the last 50 years (almost)
> in here, and i hope that i know how much better the art could have been
> without the dubious beauty of the soviet power adorning it. the regime
> broke tarkovsky, at least, it corrupted klimov into prolonged silence and
> bureaucratic toil, it ruined eisenstein's last years, if we must speak of
> the cinema. so, how good was that for art? please
> Mx
>
> On 13.08.2012 20:14, Phillip Greenlief wrote:
>
>  *From:* Max Nemtsov <max.nemtsov at gmail.com> <max.nemtsov at gmail.com>
> **
> 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?
>
> ************************
> sir,
>
> well, i'm just a dumb-ass american, commenting on movies that i like.
>
> i did live in saint petersburg, but in 1998, after glasnost, so no, i
> didn't live there during the soviet era. i tell you what i did like about
> living there: lots of wonderful musicians to play with - going to the
> marinsky theater and seeing WAITING FOR GODOT and paying the equivalent of
> $3.50 to see it, or ballet, opera, all of it - usually less than $4 to see
> great performances - good food to buy for cheap in the sennaya ploschad -
> cheap rent (i know it's gone up a lot since then, but it's not like the
> cost of housing in the sf bay area hasn't increased since 1998 ... fuck,
> give me a break) - and the russians were no where near as snotty as any new
> yorker or bay area musician i run into.
>
> onward - do you really think hollywood is without tyrants? does not the
> capitalist system come with its own insidious brand of censorship? movies
> get made in america that can make money. art isn't so terribly important to
> the mix - the so called independent cinema movement in america (which
> smells a lot like the current brand of liberalism - meaning, it no longer
> exists in a form that is consistent with its definition) has become little
> more than an avenue for young filmmakers to show the big studios they can
> suck up to the status quo with the best of 'em.
>
> i can only judge those (russian) films through the same set of eyes that i
> view any work of world cinema, and for my money, or focused attention,
> those films on that list stand up against anything that bergman, fellini,
> hitchcock, ozu, antonioni, or any of the other great film-makers have
> produced. they present fascinating stories that engage me intellectually
> and emotionally ... works for me. the first five minutes of THE CRANES ARE
> FLYING are as good as any out there, imo ...
>
> but i'm probably suffering from the same disease as you - namely, that
> anything (in the realm of art - and hell, politics for that matter) that
> comes out of my country - nowadays anyway - is met with a great deal of
> suspicion - the system that has created it is a corrupt, morally bankrupt
> system that prizes gold above all else. that's how we measure success in
> this country - what did the box office have to say about it? even a film
> like VERTIGO is still apprehended (when professionals in the film industry
> talk about it) with: well, it didn't do so well at the box office, but time
> seems to have been kind to it - and that's just about the best film
> hitchcock ever made.
>
> look at the summer releases in america and tell me which film out in the
> theaters right now stands up against tarkovsky or klimov? the fucking DARK
> KNIGHT RISES? HUNGER GAMES? MADAGASCAR 3??? ... please. two of the best
> american films i've seen this year are - no wait, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT
> KEVIN is lynne ramsay - english ... never mind. i take it back - i haven't
> seen an independent film released from an american director this year that
> can touch any of the films on that list.
>
> ok, sorry, rant over. just sayin' ... the capitalist system is not without
> tyrants, and not without censorship and not without a lot of people toiling
> and getting exploited.
>
>
> ************************
>
> 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
> >>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
"Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all creeds
the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the trust in
reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments of darkness
groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates than the simplest
urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120813/ca0fe714/attachment.html>