Art Reflects Life, It Does Not Change Life

[Moody]

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]

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]

I assume "the birth of tragedy" didn't have much effect on you, Moody?

[Moody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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;

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'.