Art, Philosophy and propaganda
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Art, Philosophy and propaganda
I'm inclined to agree. Except that it seems that many of our greatest literary artists are motivated philosophically. They seek to propagandize for their point of view, and often do so successfully.
Included in the number of specifically propagandizing prose writers are: Leo Tolstoy, George Orwell, G.B. Shaw, Sinclair Lewis, John Steinbeck,
C.S. Lewis, Rudyard Kipling and many, many more. Many of these writers wrote not only works of fiction, but also works of philosophy. In “War and Peace”, Tolstoy inserts chapters of pure philosophy, only tangentially related to the story. He also wrote a long epilogue of pure philosophy. G.B. Shaw wrote long phiolsophical introductions to many of his plays. Even Oscar Wilde – famous for his art for art's sake position – wrote a philosophic introduction to “The Picture of Dorian Gray”.
Nor is poetry exempt. Dante, Milton, Chaucer, et. al. are famous for stumping for their world view.
Perhaps Tolstoy's antipathy for Shakespeare's plays derives from the fact that Shakespeare was the least propagandizing of great writers (although Hamlet and Lear do some philosophizing on their own).
In the case of “War and Peace”, Tolstoy's anti-great-man philosophy of history is supported so well by the (fictional) action of the novel that it is almost universally persuasive (although, after finishing the book we might have a more sober view of the philosophy). What do people here thing of the relationship between philosophy, fiction, and propaganda?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
Even when it comes to qualified philosophers (folks who have the equivalent education of someone with a philosophy grad school degree, whether they actually hold degrees or not), I disagree with them more often than I agree with them. So how is some Joe Schmoe who happens to be a good writer, painter, musician, etc. supposed to be more on-target about that stuff than folks who devote all of their time to something like philosophy or political science or law or whatever? Some artworks that try to get philosophical--I'm especially thinking of some films here, like "I Heart Huckabees," "The Thin Red Line," etc. are, for my tastes, rather tortuous because of that fact.
I'm an artist professionally (a musician/composer/arranger in my case, and I also dabble in visual art and fiction), who also has a philosophical background--I have grad degrees in both music and philosophy, and I don't focus on philosophy or anything very ideological in my artworks. I wouldn't say there's never anything ideological in my works, but it's more often going to be something ideological about aesthetics/aesthetic norms, and it's in the background rather than ever being overt (in the work itself, at least).
And this isn't to say that artists I'm a fan of never get overtly philosophical/ideological in their work, but that rarely dominates the works of any artist that I'm a fan of. And when it comes to something like music, as a consumer, I normally pay very little attention to the semantic content of lyrics.
- Faustus5
- Posts: 306
- Joined: May 8th, 2020, 10:08 am
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the works of filmmaker David Cronenberg? I've always been attracted to his stuff precisely because he's exploring philosophical ideas even in the older, low budget horror projects where he got his start.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 10:09 am And this isn't to say that artists I'm a fan of never get overtly philosophical/ideological in their work, but that rarely dominates the works of any artist that I'm a fan of. And when it comes to something like music, as a consumer, I normally pay very little attention to the semantic content of lyrics.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
Cronenberg is very uneven in my view--which is unusual for me. It's not the norm for me to love some of a person's films, hate some, and everything in between.Faustus5 wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 10:24 amJust out of curiosity, what do you think of the works of filmmaker David Cronenberg? I've always been attracted to his stuff precisely because he's exploring philosophical ideas even in the older, low budget horror projects where he got his start.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 10:09 am And this isn't to say that artists I'm a fan of never get overtly philosophical/ideological in their work, but that rarely dominates the works of any artist that I'm a fan of. And when it comes to something like music, as a consumer, I normally pay very little attention to the semantic content of lyrics.
So re Cronenberg, I love eXistenZ and Nightbreed especially. I also like A History of Violence, The Fly and The Dead Zone a lot (re those I've mentioned so far, I'm a huge Stephen King fan (The Dead Zone is from a Stephen King book) and I'm also a Clive Barker fan (Nightbreed is from a Clive Barker novella)). Eastern Promises is pretty good, as is Maps to the Stars--although those recent films of his were a bit disappointing in that he changed his style so much. But that doesn't affect my rating.
The Brood and Scanners are okay, although I think both are a bit of a mess in a way, too. Cosmopolis I didn't care for very much, although I also can't offhand remember a thing about it except for the most vague of details. Spider and Dead Ringers I found extremely frustrating; I didn't like either very much. I didn't care for Naked Lunch at all, and Videodrome I absolutely hate.
M. Butterfly I think I started trying to watch but I didn't make it very far. I've not yet seen A Dangerous Method--I don't remember even being aware that he made that film until I looked up Cronenberg's filmography just now. And believe it or not I've never seen Crash, though I've long meant to check it out. Aside form that, I'm pretty sure I've never seen any of the films prior to The Brood. I don't recall seeing any of them, at any rate.
So a mixed bag in my view.
- Faustus5
- Posts: 306
- Joined: May 8th, 2020, 10:08 am
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
That's funny, those are my two favorites of his. Naked Lunch is actually in my top ten most loved films of all time. We have very different tastes!Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 10:47 amI didn't care for Naked Lunch at all, and Videodrome I absolutely hate.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
Tolstoy, however, is in another category altogether. Many critics (including me) consider "War and Peace" a contender for the greatest of all novels. For anyone who hasn't read it, stop reading my post and get a copy. It's not a difficult book; it's a page turner which tells the story of two families in Russia during the Napoleonic wars. The chapters of pure philosophy are among my favorites, and Tolstoy is such a good writer that he's very persuasive. By the way, Tolstoy also wrote "What is Art", a 100+ page book expounding his philosophy of art. It is well worth reading, especially because Tolstoy trashes Shakespeare, Beethoven and Wagner as "false artists" in it. As far as I know, Tolstoy did not have a formal philosophic education, but in "What is Art" he appears to be familiar with (and hostile to) the leading philosophers of art of the time (mostly Germans).
The philosophy of history Tolstoy promotes in "WAP" is an anti-Great-Man philosophy, that seems particularly relevant in current Trump-obsessed America. The Great Man is CREATED by millions of individual motives, of millions of individual conscious actors. By centering the action of the novel around several of these actors, Tolstoy convinces his readers through the action of the book.
One of my points is that writers are often motivated to propagandize. Of course if they aren't skillful, their books won't be any good, but if they weren't motivated the novels might not exist at all.
Here's a tidbit from War and Peace. If only all philosophers wrote as simply and well as Tolstoy, I'd read more of their stuff:
wrote: The people of the west moved eastwards to slay their fellow men, and by the law of coincidence thousands of minute causes fitted in and co-ordinated to produce that movement and war: reproaches for the nonobservance of the Continental System, the Duke of Oldenburg's wrongs, the movement of troops into Prussia- undertaken (as it seemed to Napoleon) only for the purpose of securing an armed peace, the French Emperor's love and habit of war coinciding with his people's inclinations, allurement by the grandeur of the preparations, and the expenditure on those preparations and the need of obtaining advantages to compensate for that expenditure, the intoxicating honors he received in Dresden, the diplomatic negotiations which, in the opinion of contemporaries, were carried on with a sincere desire to attain peace, but which only wounded the self-love of both sides, and millions and millions of other causes that adapted themselves to the event that was happening or coincided with it.
When an apple has ripened and falls, why does it fall? Because of its attraction to the earth, because its stalk withers, because it is dried by the sun, because it grows heavier, because the wind shakes it, or because the boy standing below wants to eat it?
Nothing is the cause. All this is only the coincidence of conditions in which all vital organic and elemental events occur. And the botanist who finds that the apple falls because the cellular tissue decays and so forth is equally right with the child who stands under the tree and says the apple fell because he wanted to eat it and prayed for it. Equally right or wrong is he who says that Napoleon went to Moscow because he wanted to, and perished because Alexander desired his destruction, and he who says that an undermined hill weighing a million tons fell because the last navvy struck it for the last time with his mattock. In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself.
Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
That's quite an extensive survey that you have done and have mentioned. It covers a lot of ground.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 3:49 pm Art for art's sake is a common mantra. The sole point of art is to create “beauty” (whatever that is).
I'm inclined to agree. Except that it seems that many of our greatest literary artists are motivated philosophically. They seek to propagandize for their point of view, and often do so successfully.
Included in the number of specifically propagandizing prose writers are: Leo Tolstoy, George Orwell, G.B. Shaw, Sinclair Lewis, John Steinbeck,
C.S. Lewis, Rudyard Kipling and many, many more. Many of these writers wrote not only works of fiction, but also works of philosophy. In “War and Peace”, Tolstoy inserts chapters of pure philosophy, only tangentially related to the story. He also wrote a long epilogue of pure philosophy. G.B. Shaw wrote long phiolsophical introductions to many of his plays. Even Oscar Wilde – famous for his art for art's sake position – wrote a philosophic introduction to “The Picture of Dorian Gray”.
Nor is poetry exempt. Dante, Milton, Chaucer, et. al. are famous for stumping for their world view.
Perhaps Tolstoy's antipathy for Shakespeare's plays derives from the fact that Shakespeare was the least propagandizing of great writers (although Hamlet and Lear do some philosophizing on their own).
In the case of “War and Peace”, Tolstoy's anti-great-man philosophy of history is supported so well by the (fictional) action of the novel that it is almost universally persuasive (although, after finishing the book we might have a more sober view of the philosophy). What do people here thing of the relationship between philosophy, fiction, and propaganda?
Art obviously falls within the philosophical branch of esthetics.
Whenever I consider art and/or esthetics, I harken to the caves at Altamira in Spain. This is the earliest art that we know of in pre-history. Such art, in dark caves, suggest that it was done as part of a ritual. Probably a hunting ritual, and probably for young boys just starting to hunt with the adult hunters of the tribe. In this case, the art was religious.
Art as a part of religion is extensive in Europe and Asia. Statues of gods and prophets are a popular theme. First Zeus in Europe and Buddha in Asia, then on to Mary and Jesus in Europe as well. The great cathedrals are artistic in their design, as were the Greek and Roman and Egyptian temples anciently.
What does it all mean? It seems to denote reverence.
There are obviously all sorts of other types of art, some of which does not seem very artistic.
But for openers, I believe that art was created for the sake of reverence in religion.
This gives me pause as I consider Bertrand Russell's edict, to keep philosophy, religion, and science separate, at all times.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
I pretty much stopped reading fiction when it was no longer required reading, after graduating from high school (as their valedictorian).Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 1:20 pm Not a fan of Tolstoy, unfortunately, and a novel telling the story of two families in Russia during the Napoleonic wars isn't my bag anyway. I'm a fan of "genre fiction." I'm not at all a fan of realist or "soap-operatic" fiction. But I'm happy someone likes him! Everyone deserves some fans if they put that much work into something. ;-)
One book in my library at home is called The History Of Art. And it starts with the caves at Altamira.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
My favorite film is Wolfgang Petersen's remake in 2004 of Troy. I love the strength and independence depicted by Brad Pitt as Achilles. Of course he does catch that stray arrow into his foot, which goes to show that everyone and everything has a weakness.Faustus5 wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 11:03 amThat's funny, those are my two favorites of his. Naked Lunch is actually in my top ten most loved films of all time. We have very different tastes!Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 10:47 amI didn't care for Naked Lunch at all, and Videodrome I absolutely hate.
Another of my favorites is Mel Gibson's 2004 remake film, Passion Of The Christ. I force myself to watch this every Easter week to remind me of the role of Jesus in modern Christian religion. Oddly I relate best with the Roman soldiers in the film, who report back to Pilate that it is about to SHTF in Jerusalem over Jesus' return for Passover there. I guess that's because I was a soldier once, long ago. And I still think like a soldier.
I think we each like those movies (moving picture shows -- they don't use film anymore fwiw) which we can each best relate to.
Yay though I walk thru the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil;
For there is nothing on this Earth that I cannot kill.
Soldering taught me that.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
Isn't "Historical Fiction" (like War and Peace, which was written half a century after the war) a variety of "genre fiction"? In any event, some of the other novelists I mentioned wrote genre fiction: Orwell (fantasy); Lewis fantasy and sci fi.), Chesterton (fantasy and sci fi). H.G. Wells (a sci fi. pioneer) definitely had a philosophic bent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 1:20 pm Not a fan of Tolstoy, unfortunately, and a novel telling the story of two families in Russia during the Napoleonic wars isn't my bag anyway. I'm a fan of "genre fiction." I'm not at all a fan of realist or "soap-operatic" fiction. But I'm happy someone likes him! Everyone deserves some fans if they put that much work into something.
Realism was the leading form for literary novels for quite a while, but magic realism and other forms of fantasy have joined the club in recent decades.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
"Genre fiction" and "genre film" have kind of a "pulp" connotation. I like a lot of kid's/teen fiction, too. Heck, Dr. Seuss is still one of my favorite authors (seriously). He actually has an ideological point in most of his stuff, although it's not very in-your-face.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 1:57 pmIsn't "Historical Fiction" (like War and Peace, which was written half a century after the war) a variety of "genre fiction"? In any event, some of the other novelists I mentioned wrote genre fiction: Orwell (fantasy); Lewis fantasy and sci fi.), Chesterton (fantasy and sci fi). H.G. Wells (a sci fi. pioneer) definitely had a philosophic bent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 1:20 pm Not a fan of Tolstoy, unfortunately, and a novel telling the story of two families in Russia during the Napoleonic wars isn't my bag anyway. I'm a fan of "genre fiction." I'm not at all a fan of realist or "soap-operatic" fiction. But I'm happy someone likes him! Everyone deserves some fans if they put that much work into something.
Realism was the leading form for literary novels for quite a while, but magic realism and other forms of fantasy have joined the club in recent decades.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
Nobody knows what rituals were performed in the caves at Altamira. I've been to Altamira, but the cave was closed to the public (carbon dioxide from people's breath harms the art). The cave art at nearby Tito Bustillo was still open then (several years ago, it's closed now, I think) and the art there was magnificent. You had to walk a half mile or so into the cave to reach it. Who knows what rites may have engendered the art, or what art may have engendered rites? (The art in Altamira is 35,000 years old, in Tito Bustillo 12,000.)h_k_s wrote: ↑May 27th, 2020, 1:43 pm
Whenever I consider art and/or esthetics, I harken to the caves at Altamira in Spain. This is the earliest art that we know of in pre-history. Such art, in dark caves, suggest that it was done as part of a ritual. Probably a hunting ritual, and probably for young boys just starting to hunt with the adult hunters of the tribe. In this case, the art was religious.
Art as a part of religion is extensive in Europe and Asia. Statues of gods and prophets are a popular theme. First Zeus in Europe and Buddha in Asia, then on to Mary and Jesus in Europe as well. The great cathedrals are artistic in their design, as were the Greek and Roman and Egyptian temples anciently.
What does it all mean? It seems to denote reverence.
There are obviously all sorts of other types of art, some of which does not seem very artistic.
But for openers, I believe that art was created for the sake of reverence in religion.
This gives me pause as I consider Bertrand Russell's edict, to keep philosophy, religion, and science separate, at all times.
In preliterate societies the differentiation between religion and other facets of culture is generally indistinct. We differentiate between "myth" and "history", for example. Oral story tellers would often use one word for both. How could there be Gods without stories? Why would the stories be a product of religion, instead of the other way around?
The separation of science, art, religion and philosophy is a modern one. In Europe and Asia, religious art is probably the result of the importance of religion in the emotional life of artists, and the fact that the Church had the money to commission art, cathedrals, etc.
In cultural anthropology there is a "school" called the myth-ritual school which insists that rituals preceded myths, and myths developed to explain the rituals. This makes sense in that may animals that lack language practice rituals (mating rituals, etc.). Clearly, they don't tell stories (myths) about them. The modern preoccupation with myth (especially among American Protestants) obfuscates the importance of other aspects of religion
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
It all depends on the valuation criteria. Most artistic forms are valued in terms of distinct social functions they might perform, for example, education, entertainment, pleasure, etc., and not necessarily for their aesthetic value.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 3:49 pm Art for art's sake is a common mantra. The sole point of art is to create “beauty” (whatever that is).
I'm inclined to agree. Except that it seems that many of our greatest literary artists are motivated philosophically. They seek to propagandize for their point of view, and often do so successfully.
Included in the number of specifically propagandizing prose writers are: Leo Tolstoy, George Orwell, G.B. Shaw, Sinclair Lewis, John Steinbeck,
C.S. Lewis, Rudyard Kipling and many, many more. Many of these writers wrote not only works of fiction, but also works of philosophy. In “War and Peace”, Tolstoy inserts chapters of pure philosophy, only tangentially related to the story. He also wrote a long epilogue of pure philosophy. G.B. Shaw wrote long phiolsophical introductions to many of his plays. Even Oscar Wilde – famous for his art for art's sake position – wrote a philosophic introduction to “The Picture of Dorian Gray”.
Nor is poetry exempt. Dante, Milton, Chaucer, et. al. are famous for stumping for their world view.
Perhaps Tolstoy's antipathy for Shakespeare's plays derives from the fact that Shakespeare was the least propagandizing of great writers (although Hamlet and Lear do some philosophizing on their own).
In the case of “War and Peace”, Tolstoy's anti-great-man philosophy of history is supported so well by the (fictional) action of the novel that it is almost universally persuasive (although, after finishing the book we might have a more sober view of the philosophy). What do people here thing of the relationship between philosophy, fiction, and propaganda?
So, if you value any work for its educational purpose, having good philosophical insights will prove praiseworthy, but not necessarily if you value it for entertainment, pleasure or aesthetics. And if you value good education, probably a work that aims at crude indoctrination, which is what you call propaganda, will not be praiseworthy. But the same work could be valuable using other criteria.
Whatever the use or purpose of the work, however, it doesn't determine its artistic value.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: Art, Philosophy and propaganda
I would not describe art that way. To me, the sole point of art is to express emotion/feeling, and it does not need to be beauty -- it can actually be quite ugly. Whether it is music, dance, painting/drawing, architecture, writing, poetry, or even fashion, it all expresses some feeling or emotion. Art is how we communicate our feelings and emotions.
I never would have thought to put art, philosophy, and propaganda together, but it makes a good fit. Now that I think about it, advertising uses the hell out of those concepts on a regular basis.
Because art is an expression of emotion, art is very believable. Most people don't think about and study emotion, but I do, and one of the things that I have learned about it is that we believe our emotions. We trust our emotions, so if someone was jerking on our emotional heart strings while spouting their philosophy, it could be very effective.
Gee
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023