I think you have to distinguish between propagandistic art, didactic art, and art that may express underlying positions or tendencies. A really crude example of propaganistic art, what Dylan calls "finger pointing songs" is something like "Which Side Are You On?" (the song) or a political cartoon. Or Dylan's own "Masters of War." Didactic art, like most of Brechts, has a point to make, but there's more to it than just the point. Brecht's ThreePenny Opera expresses lots of sides of bourgeois (and other) relations and emotions as well as exposing the essential parallelism of the criminal organization and the capitalist state. And then then art like Tolstoi or Beethoven, which embody political tendencies but mostly don't teach them -- when Tolstoi goes preachy you see the artist turn off. When he _shows_ you the randomness of war, he's much more effective at undercutting the myth of the Great Man.
Now, are people persuaded by art? W, you have practically the entire weight of Western though against you -- high and low. That's why Plato wanted to ban the poets, Rousseau to censor the theater, the Nazis to ban Brecht and the Communist to ban . . . . Well, you see my point. They could all be wrong, but for you, people's ideas are entirely endogeneous, immune to outside influence. That's wrong. Maybe you can't motsly persuade people by argument, but art is a powerful force because it shows people possibilities and evokes emotions at a nonrational level that can indeed contribute to changing minds.
True, there are few if any Bull Connors who joined the civil rights movement because they were moved by Sam Cooke singing "A Change Is Gonna Come," but for most people who haven't got defined views or who have never imaginatively attempted to empathize or conceive of certain possibilities, the song helped that change come. Not by itself, of course. But as part of a lot of otherthings. Subtract the art, and you subtract something essential. The Cold War without the right's appropriation of 1984? The Civil War without Uncle Tom's Cabin? (Or anything like those?) I don't think so.
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Chuck:
> > I actually never liked Brecht's work specifically
> because of this
> > technique. If you want to really persuade people
> through the arts, you
> > have to make the art stunning. What makes it
> stunning could be beauty,
> > horror, violence, ugliness, grace,
> lyricism---anything as long as it
> > has strong psychological impact---the exact
> opposite of Brecht's
> > theory. The audience doesn't have to identify with
> a character or
> > condition, as long as their aesthetic registers
> are pinned on Full. I
> > think it is an irony that Brecht, contrary to his
> theoretical
> > intentions is often stunning.
>
> I disagree. First of all, you will never persuade
> anyone through art,
> except those already persuaded. It is so because
> people select those
> political views as well as art forms that suit their
> emotional needs.
> Therefore, they will reject any art form they find
> emotionally disagreeable.
> Trying to "stun" them through art will either have
> zero effect or it will
> reinforce the prejudices they already have.
>
> Right wingers are naturally attracted to fascist
> views because they are
> emotionally and cognitively crippled and use fascist
> ideology as a mental
> crutch. Specifically, these are the people who for
> whatever physiological
> or psychological reasons do not handle very well
> uncertainty, ambiguity and
> unfamiliar situations. This is a personality or
> perhaps affective disorder
> that makes them anxious and frightened each time
> they encounter something
> new and unfamiliar, a situation that is ambiguous
> and open ended, not
> following an known and easily predictable path, a
> person who does not fit
> into a pigeon hole or a person outside the pigeon
> hole to which he/she
> "belongs" - anything that does not fit narrowly
> defined conventions and
> tropes. That fear produces defensive reactions -
> authoritarian aggression
> and refuge in fundamentalism and fascism which give
> them an illusion of
> control and certitude.
>
> It is only natural that these people will a priori
> reject any art form that
> is unconventional and shocking - and if somehow they
> let their guards down
> and absorb it - it will only provoke more fear and
> more need for "defense"
> i.e. aggression and more dependence on mental
> crutches i.e. fundamentalist
> and fascist ideologies.
>
> So whole I fully agree with your description of
> right wingers as pig-headed,
> mean, stupid, vicious etc. - also believe that this
> condition results from a
> mental disorder that affects, to a varying degree a
> relatively sizeable
> share of the human kind. Like with any other
> disorder (say, depression), in
> some affected individuals that disorder and
> authoritarianism associated with
> is triggered infrequently or not triggered at all,
> while in other it is
> triggered by any discomforting situation. These
> individuals are sick - what
> they need is not art but psychiatric help.
>
> Another comment - shock in art is like spice in food
> - it works only when
> used sparingly and judiciously. If you overdo, you
> can as well throw away
> the whole dish - it is indigestible. Since shock
> has been used rather
> liberally and frivolously in pop-kultur and
> marketing as an attention
> grabbing device - the only natural reaction to it is
> a big and hearty barf
> from the bottom of your belly.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs