PDA

View Full Version : Art Reflects Life, It Does Not Change Life



Moody
Wednesday, March 31st, 2004, 03:46 PM
It is put about by the liberal establishment these days that art is 'life-changing'.

We hear the indulgent critics lead the masses by talking of music, film, plastic art etc., which 'changed their lives'.

They may really believe this, but upon closer inspection it seems that art was co-opted by these believers as their lives were changing anyway.

The art itself was not a cause, but an effect!

Indeed, it is the need to find 'causes' that leads to this reversal of reality.

Because things must have causes to these believers, they then pin the label 'cause' onto a song or a painting!

No, the song or painting was chosen AFTER the event - it was an effect which was re-christened as 'cause'.

Similarly, we are told that certain pop songs 'changed the world'!
Permit me to scoff at this notion no doubt put about by the recording industry.

No, at most pop music reflects events - it never causes them.

September the 11th has caused a revival in rock music - who in 30 years time is going to claim that rock music itself caused that event?

A question;

What art REFLECTS you?

Siegfried
Wednesday, April 7th, 2004, 08:54 PM
I don't think the relation between Art and Life is a single-direction one; the two are intrinsically woven. I personally believe Art actually may change someone's life, though this occurs mainly on the individual level. When we look at it from a greater distance and study the rise and fall of entire Cultures and Civilisations, then it may indeed be said that Art reflects the health or sickness of the Culture and has never yet changed a Culture's life.
However, several Faustians have gained enormous insight into Life and Culture (and caught a glimpse of their esoteric sides) and we might therefore be on the verge of effectively using Art as a means of revitalising the community, effectively changing and revitalisating Life, Culture, and Race.
We merely need to attain a new, holistic consciousness by studying and learning from the countless philosophers, scientists and occultists Western Culture brought about - Spengler, Nietzsche, Evola, Yockey, Rosenberg, etc. - and continue to expand our awareness.
If we manage to survive our racial crisis, this will be the White man's sacred gift to Life and in fact all of the Cosmos; the ability to use Art for the elevation of Life.

Nihilist
Thursday, April 8th, 2004, 06:57 AM
I assume "the birth of tragedy" didn't have much effect on you, Moody?

Moody
Thursday, April 8th, 2004, 05:00 PM
I presume that the idea that Art can 'change the world' [big claim], derives from the feeling that you both express: that art is life-changing on the personal/individual level.

In other words, there is an [invalid in my opinion] transition from the personal to the supra-personal; from Me to the World.

The faulty reasoning is thus: if art can change Me, then art can change the World.

I say that this equation is invalid; this leads me to think that its premise may be faulty.

And the premise is; 'art changes individual lives'.

I am forced now to say that all art can do is bring out what is already there; what is latent.
It does not CHANGE in the true sense of the word.
It only draws out [edu-cate]; it only heightens; it only intensifies.

In that case, art is like a narcotic; you only 'trip' on what is already inside your brain. Similarly with a dream - the events have all been experienced somehow, no matter how much a dream distorts those events.

Art is linked to narcotica and dreams; to the butterfly we call the psyche.

So it is not life-changing:
LIFE-ENHANCING, yes.

As Todd Rundgren said,
"a man would have to be as mad as a hatter,
to think he could change the world with a plastic platter".

'Plastic platter' being a disc, of course.

So we are looking in the wrong place if we think that our artists can bring forth the national revolution; their job will be to celebrate it, to enhance it. But until the revolution is FACT, they will continue to ask why it has not yet come, and paint images of its eventual coming.
But they cannot MAKE IT.

Jack
Friday, April 9th, 2004, 02:42 AM
Is not the shift from lethargy to action a change? Life, as Francis Parker Yockey said, is action, not capacity - art does change lives, because enhancement is change.

Moody
Friday, April 9th, 2004, 04:10 PM
Is not the shift from lethargy to action a change? Life, as Francis Parker Yockey said, is action, not capacity - art does change lives, because enhancement is change.

I would argue that 'shift' and 'enhancement' are not the same as 'change', according to the law of degree/kind - which we have discussed before.
I say that 'change' is different in kind to the aforementioned.

This is not just a quibble, but is an important distinction because of my assertion that art REFLECTS. Just as looking in a mirror may enhance your life, it does not change the way you look.

I bring in here Schopenhauer's claim that music gives the clearest indication of the Will available to humans.
So music relects Will; music is NOT Will in itself.

This claim can lead us to a new aesthetic of music.

If music reflects Will, then against my traditionalism, could it be argued that electronic music demonstrates a reflection of the Will to Power?
The ability of electronic/electric music to perform at the highest volumes is that power in extremis?

To return o the previous question;
If you are right that art can change lives, can art change the World?

Siegfried
Friday, April 9th, 2004, 04:14 PM
I would argue that 'shift' and 'enhancement' are not the same as 'change', according to the law of degree/kind - which we have discussed before.
I say that 'change' is different in kind to the aforementioned.

Don't you think change is merely a large shift?

Moody
Friday, April 9th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Don't you think change is merely a large shift?

No, because change means going from A over to B; whereas a shift implies going from A to A++++, or to ----A etc.,

In other words, shifts and enhancements carry the first element with them to an extent, whereas a change implies the replacement of the first element with something else.

We talk of a sex-change, not a sex-shift.

Jack
Saturday, April 10th, 2004, 02:23 PM
I would argue that 'shift' and 'enhancement' are not the same as 'change', according to the law of degree/kind - which we have discussed before.
I say that 'change' is different in kind to the aforementioned.

Where do you draw the line? We never discussed a law. You said 'unreasonable'. We were never really able to decide exactly what that was. Unreasonable is a rather arbitrary term.


This is not just a quibble, but is an important distinction because of my assertion that art REFLECTS. Just as looking in a mirror may enhance your life, it does not change the way you look.

It may change the way you act. The world isn't static, Moody.


I bring in here Schopenhauer's claim that music gives the clearest indication of the Will available to humans.
So music relects Will; music is NOT Will in itself.

Music is a product of will, an extension of it, an amplifier and, to some extent, a modifier. This goes for all art.


This claim can lead us to a new aesthetic of music.

If music reflects Will, then against my traditionalism, could it be argued that electronic music demonstrates a reflection of the Will to Power?
The ability of electronic/electric music to perform at the highest volumes is that power in extremis?

Modify the will to power idea, and I'll accept it. But I don't agree with Nietzsche's conception. Mine is different. Yes, music is an extension and reflection and modifier/amplifier of the will.


To return o the previous question;
If you are right that art can change lives, can art change the World?

Men change the world :) And art can and does change men. But men create art, for a purpose.

Moody
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 05:19 PM
We agreed that there is a distinction to be paid between differences of degree, and differences of kind.
These distinctions have to be made for language to have any kind of precision.
I say that a "change" is a difference in kind, while your "shift" is a difference of degree.

I hold that art, in terms of its effect on the World, is not capable of changing the World.

Moreover, art REFLECTS, it is like a Mirror;

http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi1113/slides/11-04-1.jpg


It may change the way you act. The world isn't static, Moody

I'm not saying it is, but whether you choose to act or NOT, does not alter the relective nature of art; it is, as the Greeks said, mimesis - i.e., 'mimicry'.


Music is a product of will, an extension of it, an amplifier and, to some extent, a modifier. This goes for all art.

It is ultimately an EXPRESSION. Look at the various art movements - expressionism, impressionism; all of them adverting to the imitative, reflective nature of art.


Modify the will to power idea, and I'll accept it. But I don't agree with Nietzsche's conception. Mine is different. Yes, music is an extension and reflection and modifier/amplifier of the will.

Will is fundamental; art is a result of the Will.
You have answered the most important question, and agree with me that ultimately 'art cannot change the World'.

Siegfried
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 05:46 PM
It is ultimately an EXPRESSION. Look at the various art movements - expressionism, impressionism; all of them adverting to the imitative, reflective nature of art.

True; but it's an expression of the artist, and impresses the one who sees it.

A speech, for example, is an expression of the speaker, but it impresses the audience and - if it's a good one - sends them home with a shifted soul; a shift that might eventually cause the preconditions for change. Art can be much the same; in fact, one might argue that a good speech is actually a work of Art; it is literary Art, spoken aloud, that is supposed to convey an Idea. I think paintings, music, etc are, to a lesser degree and in a more abstract way, capable of the same thing. In fact, the shift and subsequent change do not even have to be intended by the artist to be very real.

Moody
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 06:02 PM
You're 'shifting' the argument in a way that proves my point;

A political speech can only be called 'art' in the metaphorical sense [i.e., it is 'like' art, but it is not art].
A political speech is not meant to be art, but it is INTENDED to move people to action.

The political speeches in Shakespeare's plays, for example, are art; and while a politician could allude to them, he would not just repeat them and hope to have the desired effect.

Hitler's speeches are great POLITICAL speeches; they are not art in the sense that Hamlet's speeches are.

So again, if we keep to art PER SE [and not stray into politics], we see that art REFLECTS life - it does not change it.

POLITICS seeks to CHANGE life [e.g., Hitler] -

ART seeks to REFLECT life [e.g., Hamlet].

Siegfried
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 01:46 PM
ART seeks to REFLECT life [e.g., Hamlet].

Art is an expression of the artist's soul and therefore a reflection of the artist's life, but it leaves an impression on the audience. By evoking emotions in the audience, art influences the flow of life.

Moody
Sunday, April 18th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Art is an expression of the artist's soul and therefore a reflection of the artist's life, but it leaves an impression on the audience. By evoking emotions in the audience, art influences the flow of life.

Yes, I think we are getting somewhere here.
Art PER SE, is a reflection - it is mimesis, expressionism, symbolism, impressionism etc.,
At that juncture art only reflects, it does not change life.

But ... the EFFECT art CAN have on others, is often life-changing.

So my thesis applied narrowly to art itself and only art; it does not take into account the RECIEVER of the art.

However, I still think it a step to far to suggest that art can change the World.

Moody
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 05:27 PM
On Hitler's Neoclassicism.

Wasn't Hitler right to see the art of van Gogh and Nolde [the latter a member of the NSDAP as we know] as degenerate?

Isn't the will to perefected form and monumentalism in the grand style of Neoclassicism in-keeping with the fascist/N-S ethos?
Isn't Expressionism etc., so thoroughly INDIVIDUALISTIC as to belong rather to democratic and liberal persuasions?

Don't we see in van Gogh, for example, a move away from a socialistic peasant ethos [another genre favoured by Hitler] in his Potato Eaters period, to a purely subjective and individualist ecstatic in his later and most famous works?
http://www.kacar.com/pictureg/painting/TVincentVanGogh-potato-eaters.jpg
Potato Eaters
http://www.monarchsolutions.com/sunpower/images/van%20gogh%20r.gif
Self Portrait

Telperion
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 07:01 PM
That's why I asked the question about art - what do you think on the subject of Hitler's preference for the Neo-Classical as opposed to the Modern?
I understand now, thanks. The artistic issue is an interesting way of approaching this subject, and one that can be very revealing of people's attitudes and perspectives.

Your approach undoubtedly reflects the asthetic sensitivity and subtlety of the Celts. ;)

ogenoct
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:55 PM
I am not opposed to classical works of art. But there is more to art than mere representation of nature. A true artist has to transcend the pictorial to portray the hidden forces that move him and his race. I believe that Hitler was wrong in advocating only one style of art when it is quite clear that many strands can esaily co-exist side by side - some works exemplifying the external and some the internal works of man. Mussolini was more progressive in that sense.

Constantin

Moody
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 08:32 PM
The pure nude form is literally the personification of nationalism.

http://www.artunlimited.de/Fotos/Psychesgr.JPG
By Arno Breker

This must be distinguished from the 'naked' form found in some aspects of Christianity, where the body is often emaciated and often seen as shameful.
The Church in the middle ages actually saw four different aspects of nudity;

'Nuditas naturalis' [e.g., Adam and Eve]
http://www.azteca.net/~ulises/adam-eve.jpg
Note the fig leaves!

'Nuditas temporalis' [e.g., poverty as in Job]
http://perso.club-internet.fr/rernould/_affiches/JobB1.gif
By Blake

'Nuditas virtualis' [sinlessness, truth]

'Nuditas criminalis' [sin, Satan]


It must also be distinguished from the erotica of Modernism, where the body is rarely purely nude, but partially clothed in a fetishistic and perverse way.

The pure nude form, without shame or perversion was revived in the Third Reich;

"The victory of National Socialism meant the replacement of a political grammar based on economic precepts and class struggle by one based on the symbolism of hierarchical integration.
The images both of NUDITY and the organic cohesion of society carried messages and dreams of social organisation with the broadest appeal".
[The Nazification of Art, Taylor]

So, as I said, the FULL nude occurs, idealised, perfected, as a symbol of the 'body politic' in 'organic' societies such as that of the Third Reich - while the nude in cosmopolitan societies is eroticised, never fully nude - depraved, debauched.

http://www.third-reich-books.com/pt-402-nude-group-03-75dpi.jpg
Third Reich Art

"Nudism was an attempt to regain, in the face of the ravages of industrialisation of life in harmony with nature. At its inception it was embedded in a rarified cult of beauty which had reached its unsurpassed cultural climax in the polis of Greek antiquity".
[ib/.]

Moody
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 06:21 PM
I am not opposed to classical works of art. But there is more to art than mere representation of nature. A true artist has to transcend the pictorial to portray the hidden forces that move him and his race. I believe that Hitler was wrong in advocating only one style of art when it is quite clear that many strands can esaily co-exist side by side - some works exemplifying the external and some the internal works of man. Mussolini was more progressive in that sense.

Constantin

I would say that it is impossible for an artist NOT to express the 'internal'.

http://www.califice.net/belge/img/celeb/rops1.jpg
F. Rops

Even in a still-life, the inner nature of the artist comes through.

http://www.vnvisualart.com/pictures/cezanne1.jpg
Cezanne

Hitler's point was that what he called 'degenerate' art expressed a botched and ill-constituted inner-self.

http://www.galeriedorn.de/Preislisten/bruecke_expressio/nolde.JPG
E. Nolde

Whereas the man of noblity would therefore been drawn towards expressing order and clarity.

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/PICS33/MUN10.jpg
P. Troost

Rollon
Wednesday, January 5th, 2005, 10:35 PM
http://www.third-reich-books.com/pt-402-nude-group-03-75dpi.jpg
Third Reich Art


Gorgeous. Normally I would classify this painting as obscene, because of the hair (not the hair on their heads, needless to say), but as you tell this is Third Reich art, I really find it beautiful. Everything from the Third Reich appeals to me. Everything associated with it is illuminated in my mind with the magnificent light of the Third Reich.