Discuss?

[David Morris]

There are numerous examples of artists who transition their work toward the
overtly political, and the resulting art falls flat. Brecht would be my
prime example, but there are others.  Is The Good Woman of Szechuan
political?  Probably, but it's message is a conundrum.  That's what makes
the greatest art. It keeps one thinking forever.

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, wrote:

> "All art is political" is a banal statement, given that the concepts of
> art and politics can be broadened to encompass virtually any definition of
> the terms; or narrowed, to exclude any likely examples.  The second half of
> Oates' statement: "especially when it doesn't seem to be," is also banal,
> at face value, but I think it encloses a good point.  Is the overtly
> political film more effective (i.e. in reaching a broad audience and
> getting some of them to change their mind) than one that affects people on
> a more subconscious level?  Grasping for an example, consider Michael
> Moore's anti-gun documentary, Bowling For Columbine.  I personally loved
> it, but NRA devotees reviled it (as did, off point, many anti-gun people
> who felt Moore exploited the clearly senile Charlton Heston).  Now consider
> a movie like Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, which has some pretty unfortunate
> events happen at the wrong end of a gun.  No one's going to describe it as
> an anti-gun movie, per se, but its subliminal message about gun violence
> might get through where Moore's in your face one is easily averted.  OK,
> its admittedly a bad example, as American gun nuts are an unlikely audience
> for a lengthy Kubrick film taking place in 18th century Britain.  But
> still, if I were to make a film (and lord knows, I'd love to), I'd do my
> best to keep any political messages aimed squarely (to use a gun metaphor)
> at the subconscious, i.e. not seeming to be political.
>
> Laura
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Morris **
> Sent: Feb 6, 2013 2:15 PM
> To: Tyler Wilson **
> Cc: Mark Kohut **, P-list **
> Subject: Re: Discuss?
>
> Yes.  I agree with the gist of your statement.  And I consider some novels
> attempts at art status.  That is why I think Oates' statement is banal at
> best.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Tyler Wilson <tbsqrd at hotmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'tbsqrd at hotmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>> Surely, there is much to argue with in the muddle below, and I’m unlikely
>> to defend it, but the way I see it:
>>
>> Art is art. It won’t be pigeon-holed or covered with blanket-statements.
>> Wouldn’t be Art if it could be. And I have to wonder about anyone trying
>> very hard to pin it down. The thing is, each individual person who sees,
>> reads, experiences a creation makes the subjective call as to whether it is
>> art (as opposed to a picture, a story, sound, etc.) and it does not exist
>> as such until that determination is made in the mind of the “experiencer”.
>> “Artists” create things, express things in each her/his own personal way
>> and I would hope do not consider (or label, maybe) those creations as
>> “art”. That is left to others. In the same way, those experiencing
>> something decide whether it is political, according to their own lights
>> (and how maybe it will be used or thought of going forward). There is often
>> a lot of overlap in things judged to be art and things judged to be
>> political, but no direct equation to my mind. It’s very true, and often the
>> case, a creator/”artist” may create a thing with political intentions, but
>> again, that doesn’t make it art.
>> --
>> T
>>
>>
>
> ********
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130206/347c0210/attachment.html>