[lbo-talk] in which lbo-talk defends 'the sopranos'

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

Justin: 
> My only point is that its bad political content is
> entirely irrelevant to its status as good or bad art.
> Whether it is good art turns on its subtlety,
> complexity, emotional power and range, aesthetic
> beauty in terms of mastery of the medium, etc. All of
> these are consistent with the work being apologetics
> for evil. The Illiad certainly is. So is Birth of a
> Nation or Triumph of the Will. Those arelesser
> masterpieces, but very great. So, yes, I do get it. I
> just don't think art reduces to progressive politics.

I tend to agree, but to a point.  Politics and aesthetics are enmeshed -
there is a reason why, say, the painting by the Viennese painter Gustav
Klimt http://vortex1.no-ip.com/klimt/ were judged to be the "degenerate art"
by the Nazis, even though they are conspicuously apolitical.  Most of it is
landscape and human body - but shown in a way that is absolutely repulsive
to those who enjoyed the aesthetics reveals in the Triumph of the Will or,
for that matter Aleber Speer's architecture
http://www.dataphone.se/~ms/speer/welcom2.htm.  

"Good" political content can have bad artistic expression, and vice versa,
but ultimately art and politics can be linked to the cognitive and
personality characteristics of individuals, and thus are correlated (albeit
not perfectly).  Authoritarian types tend to have preference for
authoritarian aesthetic, nurturing types tend to have preference for
nurturing aesthetic, of which Klimt and Cramer vs. Cramer can be good
examples.  No coincidence that authoritarians despise both.  Progressives
tend to be more open minded and do not reject a work of art solely on its
political contents, but I think subtle preference is there.  

Wojtek