Classical Music Forum banner
61 - 80 of 310 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
I remember in cartoons when a poor person was depicted, the same mournful melody was played on a violin which conveyed this perfectly.
Okay! Hey! Just a few hours ago, I was trying to remember what they played on those cartoons! I remember Schumann's Träumerei, but I could be completely wrong. I remember a family of anthropomorphised animals being thrown out of their house, but I could be wrong about that, too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #63 · (Edited)

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
The art itself is probably mostly non-political. But modern art is promoted and used for political purposes.

As left forces want to overturn the old social order, they want to replace the old art too, because it was created under the old social order and is somewhat connected to it.

But left is a diffuse term. Eastern marxists acted very differently. They demanded social realist art and modern art was forbidden. I think cultural marxists may be the proper term for the political advocates of modern art.

Cultural marxists fight everything with a artistic value, because they think it is a concept of the past. They fight even moderat modern art because it still has a artistic value. But they like the extreme modern art, and it is indeed hard to believe that it has any artistic value and wasn't created just for ideological reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
I wouldn't know the difference twixt modern art and extremely modern art . And then , I perceive the political art of slogans and speeches and cartoons and graffiti as a low-art which has its extreme , enthusiastic and simplistic fanatics .

In the night , I do dream art and that which I've never seen and sometimes is so strange . I walk through a gallery of paintings - images of a wow-now - I gaze sometimes amazed , and then maybe not , still , just trying to remember for tomorrow what I've seen existent in a quiet of mind .

Make the politics weep .

Abolish punishment .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
The art itself is probably mostly non-political. But modern art is promoted and used for political purposes.

As left forces want to overturn the old social order, they want to replace the old art too, because it was created under the old social order and is somewhat connected to it.

But left is a diffuse term. Eastern marxists acted very differently. They demanded social realist art and modern art was forbidden. I think cultural marxists may be the proper term for the political advocates of modern art.

Cultural marxists fight everything with a artistic value, because they think it is a concept of the past. They fight even moderat modern art because it still has a artistic value. But they like the extreme modern art, and it is indeed hard to believe that it has any artistic value and wasn't created just for ideological reasons.
That may be true as far as the extreme: cultural marxists, critical theory, applied PoMo, and it's perhaps getting worse. It's something to fear. But there's a rightist view too - about art - as far as the content and also what should be funded. Do you expect symphonies, let alone challenging art/music to survive without public support? And doesn't capitalism cheapen everything anyway? Doesn't it suck the authenticity out of artistic sentiment in order to copy it and sell it? Takeshi Murakami is just creating a brand, for example, nothing really transcendent. Damien Hirst seems to be another kind of con man. But it's pretty clear with popular music how it gets the life sucked out of it and destroyed. I live in Asia where popular music is designed by 40 year old male nerds. Management companies create suicidal idols and auto-tuned anodyne dreck. Classical musicians are just hobbyists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
I wouldn't know the difference twixt modern art and extremely modern art
For example: What is the amount of dissonances? A dissonance amount of 50% is rather moderate while an amount of 100% is extreme. A contrast between consonances and dissonances can be interesting, but if there are only dissonances it is boring and just sounds ugly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,294 Posts
The art itself is probably mostly non-political. But modern art is promoted and used for political purposes.

As left forces want to overturn the old social order, they want to replace the old art too, because it was created under the old social order and is somewhat connected to it.

But left is a diffuse term. Eastern marxists acted very differently. They demanded social realist art and modern art was forbidden. I think cultural marxists may be the proper term for the political advocates of modern art.

Cultural marxists fight everything with a artistic value, because they think it is a concept of the past. They fight even moderat modern art because it still has a artistic value. But they like the extreme modern art, and it is indeed hard to believe that it has any artistic value and wasn't created just for ideological reasons.
What is "Cultural Marxism"? Some poster here even has it as an avatar. I thought Marxism was a theory on economics not culture; and I don't know that Marx or Engels spent much time discussing art and music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
What is "Cultural Marxism"? Some poster here even has it as an avatar. I thought Marxism was a theory on economics not culture; and I don't know that Marx or Engels spent much time discussing art and music.
There's more to it than that. I think Marx specifically had the idea of critiquing the capitalist discourses inherent in various forms of expression. Marxism comes from "critical theories" developed by a hoard of philosophers coming after. It's got firm hold of academia.
I'm no expert but I think they DID theorize specifically about culture and they might well have spent a lot of time discussing at least art.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,294 Posts
There's more to it than that. I think Marx specifically had the idea of critiquing the capitalist discourses inherent in various forms of expression. Marxism comes from "critical theories" developed by a hoard of philosophers coming after. It's got firm hold of academia.
I'm no expert but I think they DID theorize specifically about culture and they might well have spent a lot of time discussing at least art.
Well I hear the term "Cultural Marxism" being bandied about from those on the right who seem to find fault with things such as multiculturalism and political correctness, and while the limits of those ideas may warrant debate, I don't fully understand the connection that is made to Marxism, a theory that I always thought was about economics and a redistribution of wealth. The poster, "Aries" states that:

"Cultural marxists fight everything with a artistic value, because they think it is a concept of the past. They fight even moderat modern art because it still has a artistic value. But they like the extreme modern art, and it is indeed hard to believe that it has any artistic value and wasn't created just for ideological reasons."

An example may be helpful. Who are the "Cultural Marxists" among us and what art are they promoting or not promoting for Marxist reasons?

Stalin and his lackeys established a vague code in the Soviet Union that opposed "formalism" whatever that means, but I think that Stalin at some point or another would come after any composer no matter how innocuous they were, just because he was Stalin and he had to demonstrate who was boss sooner or later. You can point to Shostakovich's Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk if you like, but that opera was also thoroughly disliked by critics in the capitalist USA because of it's explicit content, and I'd suspect that right-wingers I know of today would be just as offended by it as Stalin said he was if they had to sit down and watch it.

So I guess I'm just looking for some examples to help define the terms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Well I hear the term "Cultural Marxism" being bandied about from those on the right who seem to find fault with things such as multiculturalism and political correctness, and while the limits of those ideas may warrant debate, I don't fully understand the connection that is made to Marxism, a theory that I always thought was about economics and a redistribution of wealth. The poster, "Aries" states that:

"Cultural marxists fight everything with a artistic value, because they think it is a concept of the past. They fight even moderat modern art because it still has a artistic value. But they like the extreme modern art, and it is indeed hard to believe that it has any artistic value and wasn't created just for ideological reasons."

An example may be helpful. Who are the "Cultural Marxists" among us and what art are they promoting or not promoting for Marxist reasons?

Stalin and his lackeys established a vague code in the Soviet Union that opposed "formalism" whatever that means, but I think that Stalin at some point or another would come after any composer no matter how innocuous they were, just because he was Stalin and he had to demonstrate who was boss sooner or later. You can point to Shostakovich's Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk if you like, but that opera was also thoroughly disliked by critics in the capitalist USA because of it's explicit content, and I'd suspect that right-wingers I know of today would be just as offended by it as Stalin said he was if they had to sit down and watch it.

So I guess I'm just looking for some examples to help define the terms.
I'd be interested as well. I don't know exactly what it would mean to fight everything with "artistic value." Does that mean they fight what "Aries" thinks is valuable, that they say capitalists think is valuable, or what most people find valuable? I think there's a good critique to be made of inherent "sellouts" because I do think capitalism tends to reduce everything sooner or later but that's because I find art valuable in itself. I've heard a kind of "Marxist" critique of abstract expressionism as a kind of empty apolitical art form that doesn't do anything to promote what marxists or even just critics on the left see as worthy political goals or truths. I've even people say it's a kind of conspiracy by the CIA or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
There is also a composer's definition of dissonance too.
There is a physical definition.

"consonant" is latin and means "to sound together".

If two tones are separated by an octave every second sound wave of the higher tone will overlap with the sound wave of the lower tone. So its 50% consonance.

If two tones are separated by a quint every third sound wave of the higher tone will overlap with the sound wave of the lower tone. So its 33% consonace.

If two tones are separated by a forth every forth sound wave of the higher tone will overlap with the sound wave of the lower tone. So its 25% consonace.

And so on.

The more consonant a music is the cleaner are the sounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
What is "Cultural Marxism"? Some poster here even has it as an avatar. I thought Marxism was a theory on economics not culture; and I don't know that Marx or Engels spent much time discussing art and music.
Many ask that question, and the term is probably bad because of that. The term is not self explanatory, but I have no better one atm.

I understand cultural marxism as leveling of cultural values. (Like marxism overall is a leveling of economic differences.) More modern marxists concentrate their efforts on culture, since the straight forward marxism in the east did not work that well. Culture is the always the output of humans, humans which marxists want to equate. So the cultural marxists say all culture is equal in order to make it easier to equate all humans afterwards. So the Beethoven's 9th symphony has the same value as Cage's 4'33''. That is obviously nonsense from an artistic point of view. Its cultural marxism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
Many ask that question, and the term is probably bad because of that. The term is not self explanatory, but I have no better one atm.

I understand cultural marxism as leveling of cultural values. (Like marxism overall is a leveling of economic differences.) More modern marxists concentrate their efforts on culture, since the straight forward marxism in the east did not work that well. Culture is the always the output of humans, humans which marxists want to equate. So the cultural marxists say all culture is equal in order to make it easier to equate all humans afterwards. So the Beethoven's 9th symphony has the same value as Cage's 4'33''. That is obviously nonsense from an artistic point of view. Its cultural marxism.
I gather, then, that those of us who assert that all esthetics is personal and subjective are cultural marxists. Who knew?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,294 Posts
Many ask that question, and the term is probably bad because of that. The term is not self explanatory, but I have no better one atm.

I understand cultural marxism as leveling of cultural values. (Like marxism overall is a leveling of economic differences.) More modern marxists concentrate their efforts on culture, since the straight forward marxism in the east did not work that well. Culture is the always the output of humans, humans which marxists want to equate. So the cultural marxists say all culture is equal in order to make it easier to equate all humans afterwards. So the Beethoven's 9th symphony has the same value as Cage's 4'33''. That is obviously nonsense from an artistic point of view. Its cultural marxism.
But I'm looking for examples. WHO is out there saying that ALL cultural values are equal? Did someone actually SAY that Beethoven is equal to Cage? And even they did say that Beethoven is equal to Cage, and even if most of us agree that such a statement would be "nonsense", I still don't see how it makes them a Marxist, since Marxist ideology concerns economics and not art? So you've stated that these "Cultural Marxists", whoever they may be, would like to level art and culture in a similar fashion that Marx and Engels wanted to redistribute wealth, but I guess what I'm looking for is the smoking gun or the missing link. WHO are the "Cultural Marxists"? HOW specifically have they drawn a connection between art and Marxism? And HOW are they moving this "Cultural Marxist" agenda? And WHY is it important?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
I gather, then, that those of us who assert that all esthetics is personal and subjective are cultural marxists. Who knew?
No, I think aesthetics are subjective too, but I as a subject can say Beethovens 9th has more aesthetic value than 4'33'', and I do it. This is a subjective evaluation but there is no reason for self denial, and most humans have somewhat similar feelings.

To say that all music has the same value is a subjective evaluation too, but I doubt that anyone with a functioning ear really feels this way. Ideological motivations behind such statements are obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
But I'm looking for examples. WHO is out there saying that ALL cultural values are equal?
I think this is the quintessenz of Strange Magic's post for example.

Coach G said:
Did someone actually SAY that Beethoven is equal to Cage?
I don't know, maybe. But that was just an example for the attitude.

Coach G said:
And even they did say that Beethoven is equal to Cage, and even if most of us agree that such a statement would be "nonsense", I still don't see how it makes them a Marxist, since Marxist ideology concerns economics and not art?
There is a western marxist school called Critical theory/Frankfurt school that deals with cultural topics too. And majors parts of the political left think this way, even if they don't call themselves marxists anymore.

Coach G said:
So you've stated that these "Cultural Marxists", whoever they may be, and it might help if you could at least identify some of them
Adorno is maybe the historically most important figure of cultural marxism. But it is widespread. I heard that some exhibition rooms are allocated by ethnic quotas today for example. Or there is a thread in this forum called "Did you know that "Classical Music is Inherently Racist?""

Coach G said:
WHO are the "Cultural Marxists"? HOW specifically have they drawn a connection between art and Marxism? And HOW are they moving this "Cultural Marxist" agenda? And WHY is it important?
This way of thinking has its roots in marxism, but it don't has to be closely connected in every case. "Cultural marxism" is maybe not the best scientific term, but it is a good battle term.

It is important for music because cultural marxism promotes modern art and hampers classical art.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
No, I think aesthetics are subjective too, but I as a subject can say Beethovens 9th has more aesthetic value than 4'33'', and I do it. This is a subjective evaluation but there is no reason for self denial, and most humans have somewhat similar feelings.

To say that all music has the same value is a subjective evaluation too, but I doubt that anyone with a functioning ear really feels this way. Ideological motivations behind such statements are obvious.
The ideological motivations are not necessarily obvious. It's like astrology--if there is no evidence to support "value'' inhering within works of art, beyond individual or polled group opinions, then ideology doesn't enter into it. Anybody with functioning ears or eyes has his/her/their own unique opinions of any given piece of music or art. No Sale.
 
61 - 80 of 310 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top