Forums > Social Discussion > Should we boycott art?
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
So this stemmed from a discussion I was having with a friend about a form of art I've recently discovered: the classical Catholic Mass as a musical work. As you may know, many of the great classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Schubert, Handel, etc.) were commissioned by the Catholic church to set the words of the Mass to music.
Some of these concert pieces are amazing works of profound beauty with soaring oratorios, awe-inspiring harmonies, intricately interwoven instrumentals, and masterfully orchestrated composition. Bach's Mass in B is one of the most famous works of music in all of history.
But my friend, raised Catholic, found it odd that, as a Jewish-raised agnostic, I should love these works. I enjoy them simply for their musical beauty. I don't understand the Latin and even if I did, I wouldn't care. The Catholic church no longer uses these pieces for the Mass.
This led into a much more profound discussion of a decision that Yitzhak Perlman once made: to perform some of Wagner's work's. For those of you who don't follow classical music, Wagner was a composer who happened to be one of Adolf Hitler's close personal friends. His music is big and bold and heavy, a perfect backdrop for the grandiosity of the Nazi movement.
In spite of this, his works are amazing pieces of music, speaking to a skill and talent to match some of the great classical composers from hundreds of years ago. His skill stands with that of Mozart, Haydn, and yes, even Beethoven.
So was it right for Yitzhak Perlman, a Jew (obviously), to play Wagner's music? Was it an act of defiance, a statement of triumph? Or was it a slap in the face of the Six Million?
Is it possible that an artist can commit a crime so heinous that his or her art should be destroyed and lost to humanity, no matter how sublime the works are?
So this stemmed from a discussion I was having with a friend about a form of art I've recently discovered: the classical Catholic Mass as a musical work. As you may know, many of the great classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Schubert, Handel, etc.) were commissioned by the Catholic church to set the words of the Mass to music.
Some of these concert pieces are amazing works of profound beauty with soaring oratorios, awe-inspiring harmonies, intricately interwoven instrumentals, and masterfully orchestrated composition. Bach's Mass in B is one of the most famous works of music in all of history.
But my friend, raised Catholic, found it odd that, as a Jewish-raised agnostic, I should love these works. I enjoy them simply for their musical beauty. I don't understand the Latin and even if I did, I wouldn't care. The Catholic church no longer uses these pieces for the Mass.
This led into a much more profound discussion of a decision that Yitzhak Perlman once made: to perform some of Wagner's work's. For those of you who don't follow classical music, Wagner was a composer who happened to be one of Adolf Hitler's close personal friends. His music is big and bold and heavy, a perfect backdrop for the grandiosity of the Nazi movement.
In spite of this, his works are amazing pieces of music, speaking to a skill and talent to match some of the great classical composers from hundreds of years ago. His skill stands with that of Mozart, Haydn, and yes, even Beethoven.
So was it right for Yitzhak Perlman, a Jew (obviously), to play Wagner's music? Was it an act of defiance, a statement of triumph? Or was it a slap in the face of the Six Million?
Is it possible that an artist can commit a crime so heinous that his or her art should be destroyed and lost to humanity, no matter how sublime the works are?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
I dont think so. If sum1 has different ideals no matter how evil and wrong they seem, but still has soul enuff to create sumthing that has beauty, then there is no reason why people who hate him or whatever, or he hated them, shouldnt enjoy listenning/enjoying/performing it.
Sum people could look at it as a tad bit dis-tactful, tho...
I dont think so. If sum1 has different ideals no matter how evil and wrong they seem, but still has soul enuff to create sumthing that has beauty, then there is no reason why people who hate him or whatever, or he hated them, shouldnt enjoy listenning/enjoying/performing it.
Sum people could look at it as a tad bit dis-tactful, tho...
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
SILVER Member
veteran
1,389 posts
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
veteran
1,389 posts
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Posted:
To me, it's about the music, the misture of melody, harmony, countermelories, etc. But the point of music is to get a point actoss. Whether a particular emotion, thought, or... a point in mass. However, I think that on the point of the classical composers making songs for mass, with the big choir singing in latin and all that, I think the point has been lost, because it no longer has some large huge significant religious meaning, or it does have that meaning, but no one understands it enough to know what it's saying.
So, in otherwords, people still listen to the music, and love it (like Lightning), but the point, the purpose of the music has been lost.
BUT it hasn't. (Confused yet?)
If music is just to get a point across, then how can people listen to music that is in another language, not understand it but still manage to love it? It relates back to the melody and harmony. When you listen to something, it is up to you to decide whether you like it or not. If a certain song makes you relate to something in your life, you've read, you've seen in the world -- any connections you can make to it. Because a song can mean something to you, and something completely differnt to another. And what it means to you may not even be the point of the song at all. It is the way you interpret the language of music.
Then, there's the songs that just give you goosebumps, no matter what!
Was it right? Probably not, but depending on the situations.
Triumph? Yes, a little, I'd say. Within his defiance, I think he would have triumphed, by saying something like "look, I can play exactly what you can, and I'm not your ideal person. I'm not even that, I'm Jewish."
However to the six million? They must not've liked it too much. I can't say I would. A slap in the face? I'd think it would be if I was in that position.
But the music is something that you must interpret for yourself, and no one else can tell you whether or not it is good. When I listen to techno, it doesn't mean the same thing as when I listen to classical, or play classical on my instruments, and it doesn't mean the same when I'm listening to someone like Marilyn Manson.
That's a part of music that does bother me. It's when a certain artist, or a certain genre gets "baggage", because a vast majority doesn't like it. GREAT example being Marilyn Manson. Yes, the songs are harsh, and maybe the shock rock isn't so shocking anymore. But I listen to his music, my friends listen to his music... And people blame him for youth killing themselves, revolting against society, satanism, oh, and I think it was mentioned a few times in refrence to Columbine.
But, you don't see me going all suicidal, and majorly depressive. I don't wear black all the time, or any of those shock rock things. When people find out that *I* listen to it, THEY are the ones who are shocked. Do I look any different? No. Do I act any different? No. Then what is the big deal?
Manson himself, is actually a really intelligent person. But most people probably wouldn't give him the chance...?
You could always go back though, and say that there's people who take things too seriously, and that music like that shouldn't be out there, because it'll infulence the children too much. Well, people will ALWAYS take things too seriously, and kids grow up with much worse stuff, in third world contries for example, and if they survive, they'd probably be okay. Maybe it's the people prosecuting that take it too seriously?
[/end rant]
~ bobo
To me, it's about the music, the misture of melody, harmony, countermelories, etc. But the point of music is to get a point actoss. Whether a particular emotion, thought, or... a point in mass. However, I think that on the point of the classical composers making songs for mass, with the big choir singing in latin and all that, I think the point has been lost, because it no longer has some large huge significant religious meaning, or it does have that meaning, but no one understands it enough to know what it's saying.
So, in otherwords, people still listen to the music, and love it (like Lightning), but the point, the purpose of the music has been lost.
BUT it hasn't. (Confused yet?)
If music is just to get a point across, then how can people listen to music that is in another language, not understand it but still manage to love it? It relates back to the melody and harmony. When you listen to something, it is up to you to decide whether you like it or not. If a certain song makes you relate to something in your life, you've read, you've seen in the world -- any connections you can make to it. Because a song can mean something to you, and something completely differnt to another. And what it means to you may not even be the point of the song at all. It is the way you interpret the language of music.
Then, there's the songs that just give you goosebumps, no matter what!
Written by:
So was it right for Yitzhak Perlman, a Jew (obviously), to play Wagner's music? Was it an act of defiance, a statement of triumph? Or was it a slap in the face of the Six Million?
Was it right? Probably not, but depending on the situations.
Triumph? Yes, a little, I'd say. Within his defiance, I think he would have triumphed, by saying something like "look, I can play exactly what you can, and I'm not your ideal person. I'm not even that, I'm Jewish."
However to the six million? They must not've liked it too much. I can't say I would. A slap in the face? I'd think it would be if I was in that position.
But the music is something that you must interpret for yourself, and no one else can tell you whether or not it is good. When I listen to techno, it doesn't mean the same thing as when I listen to classical, or play classical on my instruments, and it doesn't mean the same when I'm listening to someone like Marilyn Manson.
That's a part of music that does bother me. It's when a certain artist, or a certain genre gets "baggage", because a vast majority doesn't like it. GREAT example being Marilyn Manson. Yes, the songs are harsh, and maybe the shock rock isn't so shocking anymore. But I listen to his music, my friends listen to his music... And people blame him for youth killing themselves, revolting against society, satanism, oh, and I think it was mentioned a few times in refrence to Columbine.
But, you don't see me going all suicidal, and majorly depressive. I don't wear black all the time, or any of those shock rock things. When people find out that *I* listen to it, THEY are the ones who are shocked. Do I look any different? No. Do I act any different? No. Then what is the big deal?
Manson himself, is actually a really intelligent person. But most people probably wouldn't give him the chance...?
You could always go back though, and say that there's people who take things too seriously, and that music like that shouldn't be out there, because it'll infulence the children too much. Well, people will ALWAYS take things too seriously, and kids grow up with much worse stuff, in third world contries for example, and if they survive, they'd probably be okay. Maybe it's the people prosecuting that take it too seriously?
[/end rant]
~ bobo
wie weit, wie weit noch?
fragst mich, wo wir gewesen sind...
du fehlst hier
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
well, this line of thought could also be applied to physics...
should we boycott Heisenburg's papers becaused he was a raving loony nazi?
well, this line of thought could also be applied to physics...
should we boycott Heisenburg's papers becaused he was a raving loony nazi?
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm not going to give an opinion other than that, to me, the rare music that is totally awesomly, spiritualy, beautiful isn't something I could boycott, even if I wanted to.
I'm a fairly creative individual, and, when I come up with something new I never feel particularly responsible for it. It's like it comes from some deep part of existence that lies well below the level of any individual mind.
So, if a work of perfect music comes into the world via an evil mind, I'm still going to regard it as perfect and something to listen to.
To perhaps throw another slant on this, isn't there also a moral debate on using some of the medical findings from the nazi death camps?
I may be wrong but I've heard that some of the nazi doctors who tortured/disected victims kept records which, though gotten from completely immoral practices, could potentially help save lives today?
I'm not going to give an opinion other than that, to me, the rare music that is totally awesomly, spiritualy, beautiful isn't something I could boycott, even if I wanted to.
I'm a fairly creative individual, and, when I come up with something new I never feel particularly responsible for it. It's like it comes from some deep part of existence that lies well below the level of any individual mind.
So, if a work of perfect music comes into the world via an evil mind, I'm still going to regard it as perfect and something to listen to.
To perhaps throw another slant on this, isn't there also a moral debate on using some of the medical findings from the nazi death camps?
I may be wrong but I've heard that some of the nazi doctors who tortured/disected victims kept records which, though gotten from completely immoral practices, could potentially help save lives today?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
enthusiast
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posted:
Whooo, good question! The what's and why's of music are something I've been thinking a lot about recently, so forgive me if I ramble a little.
Short answer: No. We shouldn't boycott music. But I would think twice about programming a big Wagner concert on Hannukha (?sp). So maybe I'd boycott particular realisations of music, rather than the music itself.
Longer Answer:
There's some current thinking[1] that one of the reasons that we have music is that it provides a kind of "language game" that people can participate in, but which is non-functional. That is, it has no truth conditions or explicit semantics. It also allows for "mutiply intentional representations" - that is, all the participants can have different ideas about what is happening when they are making music together. These give music a massive power to strengthen social bonds, and develop social skills without the risk of arguments as such.
So that's one aspect of music, but it applies more to people creating music together than the more score based approach taken by western music in the last couple of centuries.
But the important thing is that the semantics of music (in as much as people agree music has semantics) are not linked to the uses to which the music is put. A great military march would stir up soldiers on either side just as well if you only changed a few of the words
. The association with a particular side in a conflict is not inherent in the music: a quick search on "wagner nazi" brings up this page on Nazi approved music. Now Beethoven's ninth was written a long time before this particular conflict, yet I'm sure for many it has similar (if less strong) connotations to Wagner's works.
So I won't let this stop me listening to the Ninth. But I would try to be conscious and respectful of how it might affect others, and try to make sure that my knowledge of it's connotations made me take it more seriously and respectfully.
That said, it is undeniable that certain pieces of music put many people into certain states. I don't understand latin, and I'm not christian, but I can't listen Allegri's Miserere (for example) without a great feeling of the divine. And there are many pieces of music from cultures which I understand even less which have a similar effect on me. Beethoven and wagner are particularly good at making one feel strident and powerful, and that can easily become militarism. You could say that music is a tool for creating states of mind, which can be used or misused, just as with any other tool (Clockwork orange, anyone). Military music is particularly adept at creating states of mind I don't particularly like, and I don't really like much very military music.
Finally, about knowledge gained from horrifying means, I *think*, and I really don't know, but I think that if I had gone through something terrible and people had the chance to learn from it, I would rather they did - to take some good from the suffering. But it's not a view I'd try and push on anyone.
And just for context: np - Blowin in the wind - Bob Dylan
Whooo, good question! The what's and why's of music are something I've been thinking a lot about recently, so forgive me if I ramble a little.
Short answer: No. We shouldn't boycott music. But I would think twice about programming a big Wagner concert on Hannukha (?sp). So maybe I'd boycott particular realisations of music, rather than the music itself.
Longer Answer:
There's some current thinking[1] that one of the reasons that we have music is that it provides a kind of "language game" that people can participate in, but which is non-functional. That is, it has no truth conditions or explicit semantics. It also allows for "mutiply intentional representations" - that is, all the participants can have different ideas about what is happening when they are making music together. These give music a massive power to strengthen social bonds, and develop social skills without the risk of arguments as such.
So that's one aspect of music, but it applies more to people creating music together than the more score based approach taken by western music in the last couple of centuries.
But the important thing is that the semantics of music (in as much as people agree music has semantics) are not linked to the uses to which the music is put. A great military march would stir up soldiers on either side just as well if you only changed a few of the words
. The association with a particular side in a conflict is not inherent in the music: a quick search on "wagner nazi" brings up this page on Nazi approved music. Now Beethoven's ninth was written a long time before this particular conflict, yet I'm sure for many it has similar (if less strong) connotations to Wagner's works.So I won't let this stop me listening to the Ninth. But I would try to be conscious and respectful of how it might affect others, and try to make sure that my knowledge of it's connotations made me take it more seriously and respectfully.
That said, it is undeniable that certain pieces of music put many people into certain states. I don't understand latin, and I'm not christian, but I can't listen Allegri's Miserere (for example) without a great feeling of the divine. And there are many pieces of music from cultures which I understand even less which have a similar effect on me. Beethoven and wagner are particularly good at making one feel strident and powerful, and that can easily become militarism. You could say that music is a tool for creating states of mind, which can be used or misused, just as with any other tool (Clockwork orange, anyone). Military music is particularly adept at creating states of mind I don't particularly like, and I don't really like much very military music.
Finally, about knowledge gained from horrifying means, I *think*, and I really don't know, but I think that if I had gone through something terrible and people had the chance to learn from it, I would rather they did - to take some good from the suffering. But it's not a view I'd try and push on anyone.
And just for context: np - Blowin in the wind - Bob Dylan
monkeys ate my brain
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I made a mistake, BTW. Wagner never knew Hitler. He wasn't even a Nazi. A raging antisemite, yes, but not a Nazi.
I made a mistake, BTW. Wagner never knew Hitler. He wasn't even a Nazi. A raging antisemite, yes, but not a Nazi.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
I think that to look at the beauty of the art separate from the individual's beliefs and original purpose of the art is a good thing to do. By appreciating the result you are not condoning the ideas. It is beautiful for beauty's sake, and it also provides some form of redemption to the artist. Which is why some people will object, there are many who want their enemies seen as 100% pure evil, and see any credit to them as an insult to their victims.
I think that to look at the beauty of the art separate from the individual's beliefs and original purpose of the art is a good thing to do. By appreciating the result you are not condoning the ideas. It is beautiful for beauty's sake, and it also provides some form of redemption to the artist. Which is why some people will object, there are many who want their enemies seen as 100% pure evil, and see any credit to them as an insult to their victims.
SILVER Member
member
157 posts
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
member
157 posts
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
Posted:
Eminem got something right when he said in "Sing for the moment".
"They say music can alter moods and talk to you.."
How very true. I'm a Pagan, but some of my favorite CD's are works like Lightning described- I have a copy of Rachmaninov's All night vigil, which is absolutely magnificent. I also have a few other compilation CD's of catholic liturgical music, which I love. Even though I can't speak latin, the music is absolutely beautiful, and relaxing to listen to..Very meditative.
I'm currently working security at a site under renovation (hate it and can't wait to go elsewhere), and I like to bring music along to listen to. One of the foremen just can't understand how I could like such music. He only likes stuff he can understand- no foreign languages, no historical genres, or much of anything beyond radio-friendly rock and roll. He thinks that the Medieaval baebes would be good funeral music. On the other hand, one of his co-workers actually likes the stuff I bring, and understands why I listen to it.
On the whole subject of liturgical music, I wish us Pagans would come up with some pieces as breathtakingly beautiful as some of the liturgical works I love. It seems Christians have their "ceremonial" and "everyday" forms of music. "Ceremonial" stuff being the works we've discussed, and the "everyday" stuff being the regular body of hymns sung at service.
Us Pagans have plenty of "everyday" music, as evidenced by our large body of well-known chants, but I would love to see us develop some works as soul-stirringly beautiful as what we're referring to here.
Eminem got something right when he said in "Sing for the moment".
"They say music can alter moods and talk to you.."
How very true. I'm a Pagan, but some of my favorite CD's are works like Lightning described- I have a copy of Rachmaninov's All night vigil, which is absolutely magnificent. I also have a few other compilation CD's of catholic liturgical music, which I love. Even though I can't speak latin, the music is absolutely beautiful, and relaxing to listen to..Very meditative.
I'm currently working security at a site under renovation (hate it and can't wait to go elsewhere), and I like to bring music along to listen to. One of the foremen just can't understand how I could like such music. He only likes stuff he can understand- no foreign languages, no historical genres, or much of anything beyond radio-friendly rock and roll. He thinks that the Medieaval baebes would be good funeral music. On the other hand, one of his co-workers actually likes the stuff I bring, and understands why I listen to it.
On the whole subject of liturgical music, I wish us Pagans would come up with some pieces as breathtakingly beautiful as some of the liturgical works I love. It seems Christians have their "ceremonial" and "everyday" forms of music. "Ceremonial" stuff being the works we've discussed, and the "everyday" stuff being the regular body of hymns sung at service.
Us Pagans have plenty of "everyday" music, as evidenced by our large body of well-known chants, but I would love to see us develop some works as soul-stirringly beautiful as what we're referring to here.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of Tower Cranes, for you are soft and would look better when squashed by a full concrete bucket"
Sponge
883 posts
Location: Stevenage
883 posts
Location: Stevenage
Posted:
The piece of music is awesome, I heard it in my nazi propaganda lesson
Lots of art forms come out of awful events and movements, but someone believed in it enough to make that art form so in it's own right it's beautiful.
A bit of an abstract concept by yours truly but it works in my mind
And I just read Dom's post which I agree with, possibly helps to explain my idea too
The piece of music is awesome, I heard it in my nazi propaganda lesson
Lots of art forms come out of awful events and movements, but someone believed in it enough to make that art form so in it's own right it's beautiful.
A bit of an abstract concept by yours truly but it works in my mind
And I just read Dom's post which I agree with, possibly helps to explain my idea too
Monkeys monkeys and bananas
SILVER Member
spiny norman
314 posts
Location: Cincinnati,damn it, USA
spiny norman
314 posts
Location: Cincinnati,damn it, USA
Posted:
good music is simply good music, you cant deny brillance, even if the brilliant person has views you dont agree with
i took three years of latin, thankfully that is behind me, but i dont hear religious chants and imediatly want to translate them or anything, its about the sound not the words, the same could be argued about alot of modern rap and hip hop music, it is enjoyed by many people because of its beat, not always because of its lyrics, its not that the lyrics dont matter, its just that they're not always what the music is about.....peace
good music is simply good music, you cant deny brillance, even if the brilliant person has views you dont agree with
i took three years of latin, thankfully that is behind me, but i dont hear religious chants and imediatly want to translate them or anything, its about the sound not the words, the same could be argued about alot of modern rap and hip hop music, it is enjoyed by many people because of its beat, not always because of its lyrics, its not that the lyrics dont matter, its just that they're not always what the music is about.....peace
if you think that our kiss was all in the lips, come on you got it all wrong man, and if you think that our dance was all in the hips then, oh well, do the twist -The White Stripes
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
There are so many ways to interpret art, in fact, as many as there are people.
Now, every artist has a statement, a purpose, a cause in his/her art...a voice which s/he wants to be heard. However, we all have our own voices in our own heads which tells us what we think/feel, not what the artist wants.
My example is Arthur Miller and his piece The Crucible. It could have been a simple account of his perspective of the Salem Witch trials. It could have been a cleverly disguised statement on the politics surrounding the Cold War and the Russian threat. It could have been a statement about the American treatment of people perceived to be sympathizers. Only he knows, but everyone had their own views on it, enough to get him blackballed.
This is something that stretched into all realms of art... Is Poe any less of a genious because he was also a heroine addict?
Perhaps we should only look at the fact that he was an addict and allow that to taint our perceptions of his works?
Were the works of Tenessee Williams a masogonistic statement of his struggles with his own homosexuality, and therefore should they be discounted as they were for years because of his orientation?
How about George Eliot, who wrote as a woman, received absolutely no respect or support from the writing community *until* she started to write under a male psuedonym?
How about all the Jazz musicians who were appreciated when they were thought to be white and then discounted for years because of the color of their skin?
Or about all the many, many artists who are completely rebelled against because of religious orientation while they did nothing wrong?
What about all those people who loved R. Kelly before the whole pedifile thing? Should they discount him?
Artistic history is rife with such occurances, for many different reasons. And it is all personal interpretation. So therefore, if you liked the art, what difference does it make where it came from? Perhaps in the artist mind it made a statement you do not agree with, but that does not mean that is the perception you must take as well.
Free will, isn't it lovely?
(I think I babbled, sorry)
Pele
There are so many ways to interpret art, in fact, as many as there are people.
Now, every artist has a statement, a purpose, a cause in his/her art...a voice which s/he wants to be heard. However, we all have our own voices in our own heads which tells us what we think/feel, not what the artist wants.
My example is Arthur Miller and his piece The Crucible. It could have been a simple account of his perspective of the Salem Witch trials. It could have been a cleverly disguised statement on the politics surrounding the Cold War and the Russian threat. It could have been a statement about the American treatment of people perceived to be sympathizers. Only he knows, but everyone had their own views on it, enough to get him blackballed.
This is something that stretched into all realms of art... Is Poe any less of a genious because he was also a heroine addict?
Perhaps we should only look at the fact that he was an addict and allow that to taint our perceptions of his works?
Were the works of Tenessee Williams a masogonistic statement of his struggles with his own homosexuality, and therefore should they be discounted as they were for years because of his orientation?
How about George Eliot, who wrote as a woman, received absolutely no respect or support from the writing community *until* she started to write under a male psuedonym?
How about all the Jazz musicians who were appreciated when they were thought to be white and then discounted for years because of the color of their skin?
Or about all the many, many artists who are completely rebelled against because of religious orientation while they did nothing wrong?
What about all those people who loved R. Kelly before the whole pedifile thing? Should they discount him?
Artistic history is rife with such occurances, for many different reasons. And it is all personal interpretation. So therefore, if you liked the art, what difference does it make where it came from? Perhaps in the artist mind it made a statement you do not agree with, but that does not mean that is the perception you must take as well.
Free will, isn't it lovely?
(I think I babbled, sorry)
Pele
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
member
20 posts
Location: on the ceiling of my shoe....
20 posts
Location: on the ceiling of my shoe....
Posted:
and what about painted art?for example would you buy a painting off this nice fella (if the painting moved you in some way?)?https://www.orizzontikubrickiani.it/images/manson.jpg
and what about painted art?for example would you buy a painting off this nice fella (if the painting moved you in some way?)?https://www.orizzontikubrickiani.it/images/manson.jpg
ambiguous
646 posts
Location: Mpls, MN, USA
646 posts
Location: Mpls, MN, USA
Posted:
Music is an emotional thing, people may make it political or meaningfull in other ways, but in the end its still an emotional expression. Well, at least thats one way of looking at it.
Music is an emotional thing, people may make it political or meaningfull in other ways, but in the end its still an emotional expression. Well, at least thats one way of looking at it.
_________________________________
Fuzzy Dice.......................................
SILVER Member
spiny norman
314 posts
Location: Cincinnati,damn it, USA
spiny norman
314 posts
Location: Cincinnati,damn it, USA
Posted:
wasent Poe on opium too? alot of great artist are rather mentaly screwed up, , so said, its like they have to give up their sanity for their genious
wasent Poe on opium too? alot of great artist are rather mentaly screwed up, , so said, its like they have to give up their sanity for their genious
if you think that our kiss was all in the lips, come on you got it all wrong man, and if you think that our dance was all in the hips then, oh well, do the twist -The White Stripes
SILVER Member
newbie
29 posts
Location: currently New Zealand
newbie
29 posts
Location: currently New Zealand
Posted:
wow, Dom really hit the spot "By appreciating the result you are not condoning the ideas", I couldn't have put my view that succinctly so thanks!
As for the use of medical records from the Nazi's, I agree with mo-seph, surely to bring some gain from such horror can only be a good thing?
wow, Dom really hit the spot "By appreciating the result you are not condoning the ideas", I couldn't have put my view that succinctly so thanks!
As for the use of medical records from the Nazi's, I agree with mo-seph, surely to bring some gain from such horror can only be a good thing?
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
Do we regard the beautiful works of Leni Riefenstal as ugly because she was a friend of Hitler? Should be refuse to buy a Volkswagen as the company was directly bankrolled by Hitler? Should we talk to Germans at all because their grandparents might have been in the Hitler Youth?
We can learn from the past. We cannot correct it.
Explorer Mike Stroud briefly comments on the ethics of using the data from Nazi experiments, specifically, the hypothermia dataset, in his book Survival of the Fittest. People died to get this data, which has since saved lives. Though there's a very high probability they would not have volunteered to provide it and that their names have not been recorded, it is, nonetheless, a monument to their existence.
Do we regard the beautiful works of Leni Riefenstal as ugly because she was a friend of Hitler? Should be refuse to buy a Volkswagen as the company was directly bankrolled by Hitler? Should we talk to Germans at all because their grandparents might have been in the Hitler Youth?
We can learn from the past. We cannot correct it.
Explorer Mike Stroud briefly comments on the ethics of using the data from Nazi experiments, specifically, the hypothermia dataset, in his book Survival of the Fittest. People died to get this data, which has since saved lives. Though there's a very high probability they would not have volunteered to provide it and that their names have not been recorded, it is, nonetheless, a monument to their existence.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
well, there are certain arguments to be made about Heisenberg and his association with the Nazi's. The main one being that he is almost solely responsible (whether by accident or on purpose) for the Nazi's not developing atomic weapons. He led the whole Nazi nuclear program down a dead end path that he definitely should have at least had a very good idea would almost certainly not work. At least he had all the information and intellegence to figure that out. He also kept the Nazi research away from the path that Oppenheimer and others took in the succesful American atomic weapons program. Heisenburg certainly had the same information the American researchers had, at least in the beginning, and should have been able to do what they did sooner. Of course why he didn't do so is a question that will never be answered. Did he secretly think the Nazis were too evil to have nukes whilst acting the part of a Nazi? Did he think nukes were too evil in themselves to want to create them, regardless of ideology? Did he for some reason think that a really unlikely longshot in atomic research would pay off better and quicker than the obvious (and ultimately successful) route? Or did he actually think that the obvious route was wrong? I find the last premise hard to believe. The second to last may be accurate given Heisenburg's cocky personality, but I don't think it is any more likely than him purposefully leading the program in the wrong direction for whatever reason.
as for the notion that art or research should be used/enjoyed regardless of the darkness of its origin, I tend to agree. If something has a karmic debt, we should allow some good to come of it so that it can pay it off. There is an old WWII nazi airfield here near Berlin which was also used by the soviets when east germany existed. It has a few dozen hardened hangers/bunkers and a lot of nice flat ground (except for the areas that I realized last weekend were old bomb craters) which makes it the perfect open air party venue. A group of artists lives there now, creating and sharing. The place's history adds to its ambiance, but as the place transforms over the years, and the people living there continue to clean it up and shape it, the land and the area become something they never had the chance to be before - a thing/place that makes people happy and place some people very affectionately call home, instead of a place that only has a history of war and death. If a place or a peice of art or science carries with it a karmic burden, shouldn't we allow it the chance to become something more than memory of its origin?
Written by: Dentrassi
well, this line of thought could also be applied to physics...
should we boycott Heisenburg's papers becaused he was a raving loony nazi?
well, there are certain arguments to be made about Heisenberg and his association with the Nazi's. The main one being that he is almost solely responsible (whether by accident or on purpose) for the Nazi's not developing atomic weapons. He led the whole Nazi nuclear program down a dead end path that he definitely should have at least had a very good idea would almost certainly not work. At least he had all the information and intellegence to figure that out. He also kept the Nazi research away from the path that Oppenheimer and others took in the succesful American atomic weapons program. Heisenburg certainly had the same information the American researchers had, at least in the beginning, and should have been able to do what they did sooner. Of course why he didn't do so is a question that will never be answered. Did he secretly think the Nazis were too evil to have nukes whilst acting the part of a Nazi? Did he think nukes were too evil in themselves to want to create them, regardless of ideology? Did he for some reason think that a really unlikely longshot in atomic research would pay off better and quicker than the obvious (and ultimately successful) route? Or did he actually think that the obvious route was wrong? I find the last premise hard to believe. The second to last may be accurate given Heisenburg's cocky personality, but I don't think it is any more likely than him purposefully leading the program in the wrong direction for whatever reason.
as for the notion that art or research should be used/enjoyed regardless of the darkness of its origin, I tend to agree. If something has a karmic debt, we should allow some good to come of it so that it can pay it off. There is an old WWII nazi airfield here near Berlin which was also used by the soviets when east germany existed. It has a few dozen hardened hangers/bunkers and a lot of nice flat ground (except for the areas that I realized last weekend were old bomb craters) which makes it the perfect open air party venue. A group of artists lives there now, creating and sharing. The place's history adds to its ambiance, but as the place transforms over the years, and the people living there continue to clean it up and shape it, the land and the area become something they never had the chance to be before - a thing/place that makes people happy and place some people very affectionately call home, instead of a place that only has a history of war and death. If a place or a peice of art or science carries with it a karmic burden, shouldn't we allow it the chance to become something more than memory of its origin?
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
member
20 posts
Location: on the ceiling of my shoe....
20 posts
Location: on the ceiling of my shoe....
Posted:
i'm sorry but, what about using products that has been tested on animals ,be it a lipstick, or be it amedical drug which can cure an ilness? wouldn't that be appreciating the result without condoning the ideas?
Written by: certifiedloon
wow, Dom really hit the spot "By appreciating the result you are not condoning the ideas", I couldn't have put my view that succinctly so thanks!
As for the use of medical records from the Nazi's, I agree with mo-seph, surely to bring some gain from such horror can only be a good thing?
i'm sorry but, what about using products that has been tested on animals ,be it a lipstick, or be it amedical drug which can cure an ilness? wouldn't that be appreciating the result without condoning the ideas?
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
The other thing about Heisenberg is that had he not discovered those equations, someone else would have. The equations exist regardless of who discovers them. They would just have a different name.
However, had Beethoven never written the 9th, it's unlikely that anyone else would have.
That's the difference between applying this question to art and science. In art, it does matter who makes the work. In science, it doesn't matter who makes the discovery.
The other thing about Heisenberg is that had he not discovered those equations, someone else would have. The equations exist regardless of who discovers them. They would just have a different name.
However, had Beethoven never written the 9th, it's unlikely that anyone else would have.
That's the difference between applying this question to art and science. In art, it does matter who makes the work. In science, it doesn't matter who makes the discovery.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i'm an art historian. i don't want to get too deep into this though cos it's the kind of subject you could write volumes of books on and i could be here arguing for a very long time. very briefly though....
200 years ago art WAS propganda. a lot of the most famous paintings in 'The Canon' glorify some real arsholes and are intended to make people believe some real bullshit: but people still admire them for their aesthetic properties!
nowadays art seems to be more about some kind of personal expression. you can take what you want from it, like it or hate it, it really doesn't matter. from experience if a lot of people boycott a piece of artwork it will only serve to make it more famous.
whether it communicates good or bad ideas or is aestheticlly pleasing or revolting what art should always seems to do is make us reflect on things so like many people above have said, it should not be boycotted.
i'm gonna stop there before i start really ranting. incidentally did you know that one of the main attractions at this years Glastonbury festival is a philamonic orchestra playing Wagners 'Ride of the Valkaries'?
i'm an art historian. i don't want to get too deep into this though cos it's the kind of subject you could write volumes of books on and i could be here arguing for a very long time. very briefly though....
200 years ago art WAS propganda. a lot of the most famous paintings in 'The Canon' glorify some real arsholes and are intended to make people believe some real bullshit: but people still admire them for their aesthetic properties!
nowadays art seems to be more about some kind of personal expression. you can take what you want from it, like it or hate it, it really doesn't matter. from experience if a lot of people boycott a piece of artwork it will only serve to make it more famous.
whether it communicates good or bad ideas or is aestheticlly pleasing or revolting what art should always seems to do is make us reflect on things so like many people above have said, it should not be boycotted.
i'm gonna stop there before i start really ranting. incidentally did you know that one of the main attractions at this years Glastonbury festival is a philamonic orchestra playing Wagners 'Ride of the Valkaries'?
It is our fantasies that make us real. Without our fantasies we're just a blank monkey' - Terry Pratchett
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
well, I think that is mostly true, but there is a subtle catch 22 in there that would take too long to explore here that actually implies that science is not an inherintly set thing, but rather set by the way you choose to aproach it. therefor, the philosophy of a culture's scientific meathod and indeed the predispositions of the particular scientist may influence subsequent discoveries. but all that is way off topic and if you look really hard with the HoP search engine, maybe you can find some things I've written about that before.
Written by: L i g h t n i n g
That's the difference between applying this question to art and science. In art, it does matter who makes the work. In science, it doesn't matter who makes the discovery.
well, I think that is mostly true, but there is a subtle catch 22 in there that would take too long to explore here that actually implies that science is not an inherintly set thing, but rather set by the way you choose to aproach it. therefor, the philosophy of a culture's scientific meathod and indeed the predispositions of the particular scientist may influence subsequent discoveries. but all that is way off topic and if you look really hard with the HoP search engine, maybe you can find some things I've written about that before.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
then comes the question: is art a science? is science an art? have i been awake for too long to be thinking about this sort of thing?
then comes the question: is art a science? is science an art? have i been awake for too long to be thinking about this sort of thing?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
I've done both fine arts and physics intensively, and science is art if you ask me.
I've done both fine arts and physics intensively, and science is art if you ask me.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
science and art go hand in hand in my opinion
Where I work we have people who are creating art works using an electron microscope! That's a great cross over of art and science...
(oops, thread hijacking, sorry)
science and art go hand in hand in my opinion
Where I work we have people who are creating art works using an electron microscope! That's a great cross over of art and science...
(oops, thread hijacking, sorry)
BRONZE Member
Super Gidg!!!!
8,506 posts
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Super Gidg!!!!
8,506 posts
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posted:
Short and sweet (though I love everyones long dissertations)
NO! Do not boycott art!
Short and sweet (though I love everyones long dissertations)
NO! Do not boycott art!
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is NOT.
Proud member of the HoP DPS.
Sanity is a highly overrated state of mind.
I'm normal ... it's everyone else that's crazy.
Gidg
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
I believe music is one of the most powerful of all mans creations.
I find that all of lifes problems, emotions, joys, and shames, can be found in some form of music.
I was in Drama class in highschool, and one of the people in the class was complaining about how unrealistic musicals are. The teacher, was quick to point out how easily music, and more particulerly, song, fits into normal life.
Look at American Country Music for example... you can quickly find a number of songs to suit every mood. True you may find more for one than for others, but they are there.
True Rock and Roll, GNR, Aerosmith, ACDC, these bands are known throughout the world to put a variety of feeling into their music, thus their popularity.
Trance, Techno, House... in all of these, be they lyrical or not, you can find wonderous songs, though I will admit, I don't think I have found a song that sounds "angry".
If you are in a somber mood, contemplating life... you have Castles in the Sky... The song can compliment your mood or even change it.
The point being, music is a wonderful creation, a powerful weapon (used by many differnt activists for many differnt causes) and should be cherrished.
Was Wagner an evil man? What were his crimes?
I like history, and I have never really heard of this man, no, I will be honest, I have never heard of him before now.
Yes a Nazi, or friend of Hitler he may be, but I think it is foolish to ban or chastise anyone who wishes to play his music simply because of who his friend was?
I could understand a feeling of anger if his music had lyrics to it that were obscene.
I think a bold and heavy almost dark song would be a grand compliment to a mood set that puts you in a dark corner just brooding over something that is troubling you.
Yet when Mr. Perlman selected him to play his music, he might have seen the notes on the page and thought... "wow, this is something" and completly ignored who was the writer, because it wasnt important to him.
Why should you hold anything against Perlman? Why should anyone feel that because he is Jewish, that he should have nothing to do with Wagner?
Should Jews not live in the majority of Europe because it was once controlled by Nazis?
That to me sounds like the angry rederic of people who are afraid to let go of the past, people who still feel that Germans are all anti Jew.
So, Lightning, to answer your questions... No we should not boycott that art. However there are some things that get labled "art" that should be not only boycotted but considerd criminal acts. But that is for another topic.
I believe music is one of the most powerful of all mans creations.
I find that all of lifes problems, emotions, joys, and shames, can be found in some form of music.
I was in Drama class in highschool, and one of the people in the class was complaining about how unrealistic musicals are. The teacher, was quick to point out how easily music, and more particulerly, song, fits into normal life.
Look at American Country Music for example... you can quickly find a number of songs to suit every mood. True you may find more for one than for others, but they are there.
True Rock and Roll, GNR, Aerosmith, ACDC, these bands are known throughout the world to put a variety of feeling into their music, thus their popularity.
Trance, Techno, House... in all of these, be they lyrical or not, you can find wonderous songs, though I will admit, I don't think I have found a song that sounds "angry".
If you are in a somber mood, contemplating life... you have Castles in the Sky... The song can compliment your mood or even change it.
The point being, music is a wonderful creation, a powerful weapon (used by many differnt activists for many differnt causes) and should be cherrished.
Was Wagner an evil man? What were his crimes?
I like history, and I have never really heard of this man, no, I will be honest, I have never heard of him before now.
Yes a Nazi, or friend of Hitler he may be, but I think it is foolish to ban or chastise anyone who wishes to play his music simply because of who his friend was?
I could understand a feeling of anger if his music had lyrics to it that were obscene.
I think a bold and heavy almost dark song would be a grand compliment to a mood set that puts you in a dark corner just brooding over something that is troubling you.
Yet when Mr. Perlman selected him to play his music, he might have seen the notes on the page and thought... "wow, this is something" and completly ignored who was the writer, because it wasnt important to him.
Why should you hold anything against Perlman? Why should anyone feel that because he is Jewish, that he should have nothing to do with Wagner?
Should Jews not live in the majority of Europe because it was once controlled by Nazis?
That to me sounds like the angry rederic of people who are afraid to let go of the past, people who still feel that Germans are all anti Jew.
So, Lightning, to answer your questions... No we should not boycott that art. However there are some things that get labled "art" that should be not only boycotted but considerd criminal acts. But that is for another topic.
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
Oohh, a very interesting topic as well... maybe we should start that thread somewhere....
Written by:
No we should not boycott that art. However there are some things that get labled "art" that should be not only boycotted but considerd criminal acts. But that is for another topic.
Oohh, a very interesting topic as well... maybe we should start that thread somewhere....
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com