Art is Not Elite nor Individualist
Art and Elitism
A common misconception perpetrated by the bourgeoisie is that art is somehow "superior" to ordinary life. Even Mao fell victim to this, a bit, in his idea that art expresses life not just in a concentrated synoptic form but also the highest and best aspects of life. Yes, our art should inspire, and be both expert and red. However our art should also reflect life as it is, in order to expose and critique imperialism and to edify the truly productive sector, the proletarians who live almost exclusively in the Third World.
That is, the artist is not to be seen as an elite as somehow superior or above anyone. Bourgeois art often tries to make "art stars" like Andy Warhol. Maoist art will not make "art stars" because we want to unleash the creative potential of all and at every level. Andy Warhol could not write poetry. Madonna cannot act. Creating stars gives artists unrealistic views of themselves and the world.
Art is not "superior" to daily life. Art is part of daily living and art must reflect daily living. Marxism is egalitarian. The child's painting is every bit as valid as the adult's poem. Art is representation of reality and like any intellectual endeavor risks becoming a purely speculative imaginary venture for that reason.
The reason the bourgeoisie elevates some art and some artists is to reinforce the bourgeois world view, to bolster and shore up the defence mechanisms, both psychological and physical, of the world's elite rich ruling caste. Nothing doing. We do not want to make the bourgeoisie cry like an emo but they really give us no choice since they are making the proletariat bleed to make a killing on the stalk market.
Subjectivism argues there is no "good" or "bad" art. We must reject that line. There is objectively progressive art and art that is technically well done.
Relativism argues that there is no "good" or "evil". Again, we must reject that line. Survival of our species is good and extinction of our species is bad.
Subjectivism and relativism both allow the critique of the bourgeois line of superstar individualist elite art that is somehow light years beyond what the proletariat are capable of even though the proles outnumber the superstars by factors of tens or even hundreds of millions.
But, we do not make scientific progress by critiquing failure with more failure. So attacking elite art with relativism or subjectivism isn't the way to go.
We arrive at the idea of the validity of all art as an expression by egalitarianism, by recognizing the inherent worth of each person and their hunger to self develop to self express. This explains why we will censure but not censor art. We will archive bad art as notes for the future and as grist for satire. We will not expose bad art to the proletariat, they deserve far better than that. But we will not chop off the hands of the enemy classes even when they hold something as deadly as a paint brush.
That line could be critiqued as fostering individualism and liberalism. No. Artistic creation can be collective or individual. Bourgeois art is most always individual but sometimes at least collective performers are presented by individual authors. We will foster and encourage collaborative art. We will permit individual artistic expression but will channel the output in some cases shunting it off to dusty vaults of libraries access to which may be granted only on showing of good reason. We will for example present expositions of failed art, bad ideas, and "What don't we do anymore". The cathartic function of art, the healthy expression and release of unhealthy pent up tensions, can only occur through art production and art dissemination. However that dissemination impacts on whether the art functions as a catharsis or as a pathogen.
These medical terms can be criticized as more Aristotelianism, and as a false analogy. Would anyone argue that fascism is not like an illness? The fascists labelled the communists an illness but they in fact were the illness. What of catharsis? People have emotions and they need to express them to be healthy. That's what drives art. Those emotions can be expressed healthily, as when a lover puts all their energy into creating a house, a painting, a meal or unhealthily as when one goes to war for profit. Yes, Aristotle talked of Catharsis? So? We must make the old serve the new, and truth is truth regardless of who sees it or who says it.
Maoist Art is anti-capitalist and pro-letariat. It is anti-elitist and cooperative. It's something we have only seen glimpses of thanks to comrade Jiang Qing. Hold high Chiang Ching's works, study them to understand the correct line and emulate them to elevat that line in the process of displacing bourgeois individualist elitist "arte".
*The Art Ministry will use the terme "arte" for the poseur individualist elitist bourgeois trash masquerading as oh-so-fine-on-high. The Art Ministry will use the term proletArt to refer to the Art that is produced by the world's exploited majority. The Art Ministry will use the term "Kunst" to refer to bourgeois art that gets a pass. The term "art" will be used for artistic production generally speaking with no determination or indication whether that art is prolet, bourgeois, evil, or good. These definitions are subject to revision by the Chair or the Central Committee when it reconvenes.
A common misconception perpetrated by the bourgeoisie is that art is somehow "superior" to ordinary life. Even Mao fell victim to this, a bit, in his idea that art expresses life not just in a concentrated synoptic form but also the highest and best aspects of life. Yes, our art should inspire, and be both expert and red. However our art should also reflect life as it is, in order to expose and critique imperialism and to edify the truly productive sector, the proletarians who live almost exclusively in the Third World.
That is, the artist is not to be seen as an elite as somehow superior or above anyone. Bourgeois art often tries to make "art stars" like Andy Warhol. Maoist art will not make "art stars" because we want to unleash the creative potential of all and at every level. Andy Warhol could not write poetry. Madonna cannot act. Creating stars gives artists unrealistic views of themselves and the world.
Art is not "superior" to daily life. Art is part of daily living and art must reflect daily living. Marxism is egalitarian. The child's painting is every bit as valid as the adult's poem. Art is representation of reality and like any intellectual endeavor risks becoming a purely speculative imaginary venture for that reason.
The reason the bourgeoisie elevates some art and some artists is to reinforce the bourgeois world view, to bolster and shore up the defence mechanisms, both psychological and physical, of the world's elite rich ruling caste. Nothing doing. We do not want to make the bourgeoisie cry like an emo but they really give us no choice since they are making the proletariat bleed to make a killing on the stalk market.
Subjectivism argues there is no "good" or "bad" art. We must reject that line. There is objectively progressive art and art that is technically well done.
Relativism argues that there is no "good" or "evil". Again, we must reject that line. Survival of our species is good and extinction of our species is bad.
Subjectivism and relativism both allow the critique of the bourgeois line of superstar individualist elite art that is somehow light years beyond what the proletariat are capable of even though the proles outnumber the superstars by factors of tens or even hundreds of millions.
But, we do not make scientific progress by critiquing failure with more failure. So attacking elite art with relativism or subjectivism isn't the way to go.
We arrive at the idea of the validity of all art as an expression by egalitarianism, by recognizing the inherent worth of each person and their hunger to self develop to self express. This explains why we will censure but not censor art. We will archive bad art as notes for the future and as grist for satire. We will not expose bad art to the proletariat, they deserve far better than that. But we will not chop off the hands of the enemy classes even when they hold something as deadly as a paint brush.
That line could be critiqued as fostering individualism and liberalism. No. Artistic creation can be collective or individual. Bourgeois art is most always individual but sometimes at least collective performers are presented by individual authors. We will foster and encourage collaborative art. We will permit individual artistic expression but will channel the output in some cases shunting it off to dusty vaults of libraries access to which may be granted only on showing of good reason. We will for example present expositions of failed art, bad ideas, and "What don't we do anymore". The cathartic function of art, the healthy expression and release of unhealthy pent up tensions, can only occur through art production and art dissemination. However that dissemination impacts on whether the art functions as a catharsis or as a pathogen.
These medical terms can be criticized as more Aristotelianism, and as a false analogy. Would anyone argue that fascism is not like an illness? The fascists labelled the communists an illness but they in fact were the illness. What of catharsis? People have emotions and they need to express them to be healthy. That's what drives art. Those emotions can be expressed healthily, as when a lover puts all their energy into creating a house, a painting, a meal or unhealthily as when one goes to war for profit. Yes, Aristotle talked of Catharsis? So? We must make the old serve the new, and truth is truth regardless of who sees it or who says it.
Maoist Art is anti-capitalist and pro-letariat. It is anti-elitist and cooperative. It's something we have only seen glimpses of thanks to comrade Jiang Qing. Hold high Chiang Ching's works, study them to understand the correct line and emulate them to elevat that line in the process of displacing bourgeois individualist elitist "arte".
*The Art Ministry will use the terme "arte" for the poseur individualist elitist bourgeois trash masquerading as oh-so-fine-on-high. The Art Ministry will use the term proletArt to refer to the Art that is produced by the world's exploited majority. The Art Ministry will use the term "Kunst" to refer to bourgeois art that gets a pass. The term "art" will be used for artistic production generally speaking with no determination or indication whether that art is prolet, bourgeois, evil, or good. These definitions are subject to revision by the Chair or the Central Committee when it reconvenes.
posted by Maoist Internationalist Movement at 12:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home