Religion, Higher Education, Leftists and Government Money

[Chronos]

I already gave my answer to that question. Is there something specific you are looking for from me? If there is a point you have in mind to make, go ahead and make it because I am not sure what you are digging at.

I asked what makes art "leftist", but the response I got was a reference to an artist and his work. I replied by linking one of the examples you provided, and I also linked an example of what I thought might qualify as a counterpoint, artistically. Nevertheless, I am asking what makes art "leftist", and I am not getting a definition, so I don't understand.

[jaybwell32]

...I am asking what makes art "leftist", and I am not getting a definition, so I don't understand.

I am incredulous about your lack of understanding. I think you are not so much interested in definitions as much as you are curious about MY opinions. I am flattered that you care. However, this dog don't hunt. I only offer the following.

What constitutes art is in the eye of the beholder. The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.

So, what is "leftist"?

Left, left-wing and leftist generally refer to support for social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics view as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.

Do you understand the position you have put me in you sadistic fuck?[1]

At any rate.

Leftist art would then be an image created by a person who identifies with leftist ideology. In my opinion, the image itself is practically meaningless without the artist's explanation of what it is supposed to mean. Unless we are simply looking at a still life of a fruit basket, then there is no message, just the style and skill of the artist is on display.   

In the example I gave and the image you provided, the artist was leftist and his image conveyed the struggles and triumph of man according to his personal vision. It just so happened that Rivera's vision was diametrically opposed to Rockefeller's personal vision, so the mural was destroyed. Rockefeller being a capitalist and Rivera being a communist and all.

On the other hand, Norman Rockwell idealized[2] the conservative point of view. His illustrations evoke a sense of nostalgia for many people who long for simpler times...whatever that means. Rockwell's body of work looks like a family photo album. It captures all the great times and fond memories. After all, who takes the time to immortalize their personal hardships?

So, you see...the question you ask is not very simple and I am not a scholar but I hope this has helped you understand what leftist art is, in some way.

On the other hand, if I have completely missed the mark...I await your correction. 

1.
2.	whether he meant to or not

[Chronos]

I am incredulous about your lack of understanding. I think you are not so much interested in definitions as much as you are curious about MY opinions.

A work of art is nothing but interpretation and perspective. Any reaction to a work of art is an opinion.

I am flattered that you care. However, this dog don't hunt.

So, with this reply you are saying that my query about the definition of "leftist" art is ... incredulous?

I only offer the following.

What constitutes art is in the eye of the beholder. The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.

Art cannot be defined, hence my question.

So, what is "leftist"?

Left, left-wing and leftist generally refer to support for social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics view as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.

I didn't need a definition of "leftist" as I am thoroughly aware of the common usage of the term "leftist", "left-wing", "lefty", etc. My question was its association with the word "art".

Leftist art would then be an image created by a person who identifies with leftist ideology. In my opinion, the image itself is practically meaningless without the artist's explanation of what it is supposed to mean. Unless we are simply looking at a still life of a fruit basket, then there is no message, just the style and skill of the artist is on display.

So, if an artist identifies with a particular political or sociological subculture, then the work emanating from that artist must be the expression of the same? So, Diego Rivera, an artist with whom I have little or no knowledge (I think I've heard the name before, but that's it), is a leftist and any work of art he completes is leftist art?

In the example I gave and the image you provided, the artist was leftist and his image conveyed the struggles and triumph of man according to his personal vision. It just so happened that Rivera's vision was diametrically opposed to Rockefeller's personal vision, so the mural was destroyed. Rockefeller being a capitalist and Rivera being a communist and all.

Oddly, I gained no feeling of leftist art from the example you gave. I simply see a few slices of humanity crunching through the mechanisms of life and through the lenses of time. Certainly, in the lower-right corner I see the red flag waved as a symbol of workers, who are largely a group of white men -- not very diverse, in opposition to the lower-left corner which is a bunch of spectators who are diverse in age, sex and race, but it even includes animals. The two sides are either viewing the same mechanisms of life, viewing each other or in opposition to each other. I'm not really sure. If I find anything politically telling from this portion of the work it is that the most diversity occurs on the left (leftist?) and the least occurs on the right, but the right side is waving a red flag, which is a leftist symbol. Offset from that is the upper corners which show an army marching to war (offensive or defensive is not clear because it looks like planes are bombing from behind) and it appears that the Christian god figure is providing power to the war -- a rightist expression on the left side of the painting. Meanwhile, the upper right is another set of non-diverse workers (except for sex) wearing red.

Now, in all of this, the physical positions of the groups are in the corners opposite of their political directionals, but they are facing the opposite way, also. Or, are they all staring at the center? Perhaps they are staring at the machine of life and time that keeps going no matter what else these groups or their competitors do?

So, Diego Rivera is leftist and says that this work is leftist art? Funny, I don't see it that way at all. Even the title of the work implies no particular point of view because the only thing at the crossroads is a center point. In my opinion, if there is any political message to this work it is that those who think they are on the left might find that they are actually on the right, and vice-versa. Or, that when one goes sufficiently far enough to the left or right, one ends up in this strange area that sometimes referred to as "libertarian". Libertarianville sounds like nirvana, but it isn't (IMNSHO). It can't be. Libertarianville has only one rule which is that there are no rules. Ultimate freedom. Libertarianville is where the liberties of one can suppress the liberties of another, and frequently do. Ironically, all of the things depicted in the work have rules, whether it is physics, biology or sociology.

If Man at the Crossroads is leftist art, it is only so in the mind of its creator. If the meaning of art is in the eye of the beholder, the work only says to me that we should all work together, not in opposition, and I don't find that has any other political message than compromise.

On the other hand, Norman Rockwell idealized[1] the conservative point of view. His illustrations evoke a sense of nostalgia ...

1.	whether he meant to or not

Given my lack of knowledge of what makes art "leftist" or "rightist", I gave Norman Rockwell as an example of anti-anarchy, anti-chaos. Using the word as aptly as you did, Mr Rockwell apparently considered himself to be an illustrator rather than an artist. He conveyed images of life as he saw them, and his works were used to illustrate others stories or events. In other words, Rockwell could have been a photographer but chose to paint instead. As you indicated, his works are only viewed as "conservative" merely due to the passage of time, those who appreciate his work and pine for the time in the past when their lives were simpler (older people, generally). However, as an illustrator of life, Rockwell was not immune to any political  perspective, including a "leftist", "liberal" movements, such as the civil rights movement. So, not all of his work appears like a family photo album. I am sure that many who pine for his "conservative" illustrations are unaware that he painted the word "nigger" in a painting that was displayed in the White House. Here is the work The Problem We All Live With:

After all, who takes the time to immortalize their personal hardships?

Unbeknownst to many, Rockwell did -- or at least he did document the hardships of others. So, is Rockwell defining his own work or are the beholders? I ask this question because if an artist says that his or her work is one thing or another, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Of course, in the above painting, Rockwell is simply illustrating political discourse, but is he for it or against it? While I view Rockwell as someone who is illustrating civil rights in action, could he also be speaking to those who call blacks "niggers"?

So, you see...the question you ask is not very simple and I am not a scholar but I hope this has helped you understand what leftist art is, in some way.

On the other hand, if I have completely missed the mark...I await your correction.

Neither am I a scholar about artwork -- not in the least. While the creator of a work has a purpose or thought in mind, it is ultimately the viewer who decides the meaning of a particular work of art. Given the wide interpretation possible with art, it seems limiting to provide political categories to art.


PS: I only provide a caveat for Rockwell as an illustrator because some artists are prejudiced against illustrators as "artists". They simply view them as people who build images using the same materials as artists, but not expressing their own views insomuch as someone else's. This is much like carpenters who build homes with the same materials as "artists" but the work of carpenters is not considered "art". I provide no snobbery in either direction on the issue.

[jaybwell32]

Chronos

Everything about art is subjective. The thing I have trouble wrapping my brain around is your suggestion that a piece of art does not necessarily represent what the artist who created it intended it to represent.

What you suggests makes sense if we are talking about something simple like a still life



This piece was also done by Rivera but it doesn't seem to betray any political or religious ideology held by the artist. It is neutral. 

However when talking about a protest piece like Man at the Crossroads It is well known and well established that the mural in question was intended as pro leftist/socialist propaganda[1].

So...who is right? You...

If Man at the Crossroads is leftist art, it is only so in the mind of its creator. If the meaning of art is in the eye of the beholder, the work only says to me that we should all work together, not in opposition, and I don't find that has any other political message than compromise.

Or Dora Apel

Diego Rivera, widely known for his murals at the Detroit Institute ofArts and theSan Francisco Stock Exchange Luncheon Club, became famous nationally andinternationally when his mural for the Radio City ofAmerica (RCA) Building atRockefeller Center in New York City was halted on 9 May 1933, andsubsequently destroyed on 10 February 1934. Commissioned at the height of theDepression and on the eve of Hitler's rise to power, Rivera's mural may be readas a response to the world's political and social crises, posing the alternatives forhumanity as socialist harmony, represented by Lenin and scenes of celebrationfrom the Soviet state, or capitalist barbarism, depicted through scenes ofunemployment, war and "bourgeois decadence" in the form of drinking andgambling, though each side contained ambiguous elements. At the center stoodcontemporary man, the controller of nature and industrial power, whose choicelay between these two fates. The portrait of Lenin became the locus of thecontroversy at a moment when Rivera was disaffected with the policies of Stalin,and the Communist Party (CP) opposition was divided between Leon Trotskyand the international Left Opposition on one side, and the American RightOpposition led by Jay Lovestone on the other. In his mural, Rivera presentedLenin as the only historical figure who could clearly symbolize revolutionarypolitical leadership. When he refused to remove the portrait of Lenin andsubstitute an anonymous face, as Nelson Rockefeller insisted, the painter wassummarily dismissed, paid off, and the unfinished mural temporarily covered up,sparking a nationwide furor in both the left and capitalist press. While the arthistorical literature has largely dealt with the events surrounding the RCA muralin terms of Rivera's relationship to his capitalist patrons, this article considersthe political motivations for Rivera's artistic practice in terms of his relationshipto the Communist left, a key sector of his audience.'Thesame year the project was terminated, Rivera took its mostcontroversial motif and expanded it to include the portraits of a dozenrevolutionary leaders in a unified stand. This was the culminating panel of aseries of twenty-one murals portraying a radical history of America at the NewWorkers School in New York, run by the Lovestone group.

Or PBS

He was a free-spirited artist -- exuberant, provocative and a self-avowed Communist. They were the very embodiment of capitalism, and a family obsessed with virtue and restraint. Indeed, Diego Rivera and the Rockefellers couldn’t have been more different. And yet, for a brief moment in the midst of the turbulent 1930s, they shared the spotlight in a bizarre and very public drama. Their improbable association would soon unravel, bringing about one of the biggest art scandals of the twentieth century. The "battle of Rockefeller Center," as Rivera liked to call it, left both parties bruised -- and the lobby of the RCA building devoid of a memorial to the socialist way of life.

Or Professor Kleinfelder

Subject: man at the crossroads between past and present, capitalism and communism in the modern machine-age. A mural that tries to bridge "primitive" myths of nature with modern advances in technology. Plants grow up from the soil at bottom; a machine looms up overhead. Faceless figures wearing gas masks and marching in military formation carry rifles in the upper left corner; they are flanked on the right by workers wearing Communist red scarfs and joining together as a collective, raising their voices in song. The left side of the painting is dominated by exploiters and wall street high society, while the right side contrasts sharply with figures clustered in solidarity around Lenin, the father of the Communist Revolution. In a way, the mural is a secular Last Judgment: the left represents the damned in Rivera's opinion; the right shows the blessed, those who uphold the Communist party's heroic ideals of social justice and a classless society. The man at center must determine how to steer a course into the future between these two poles.

Style: Rivera rejects his early experiments with Cubism and abstract formalism to make a return to a more academic tradition, but this is by no means a regressive move on his part. His shift away from Cubism after WWI is as radical as shifting to Cubism was before the war. His decision corresponds to a conscious and determined idealism that followed the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and that led to his own radicalized political agenda. Mexico had had its own revolution in 1910; Rivera decides after WWI to make an art for the people and of the people. He adopts a symbolic-representational style and a large-scale mural format that would serve a didactic, public function by teaching the Mexican people how to reclaim and embrace their own heritage and history. His style is best termed New Realism, because it is far removed from the academic, Old World naturalism. The densely packed murals are almost montages of fragmentary figures and symbolic elements located within fictive spaces. It is still abstract, thus, in some ways, but emphasis is on making the revolutionary content clearly readable and understandable by the masses. The figures may be simplified, but there is nothing simple about these complex, allegorical compositions that are overwhelmingly powerful both visually and in terms of their invented iconography or symbolic program.

Context: Rivera revolutionizes the mural tradition of Mexico, using his New Realism to reclaim his peoples' cultural identity and history. The Mexican mural tradition that follows the 1910 Mexican Revolution emerges as part of a new educational reform. Americans did not always appreciate the revolutionary lessons that made up Rivera's iconography; when Rivera refused Nelson Rockefeller's request to remove a portrait of Lenin from a NY mural he had painted, Rockefeller had the mural destroyed. Rivera's Mexican mural painting is a wonderful example of cultural self-identification; it also shows how realistic art and a traditional format--the mural--can be made as revolutionary as anything painted by Europe's experimental, abstract avant-garde.

If you are right about the Man at the Crossroads then you disenfranchise the artist from his vision. You are entitled to your opinion of coarse but what good does it do to deny the meaning the artist conveyed?

You asked what "leftist art" was. My answer is about as close as you can get and still retain any universal meaning.

Leftist art would then be an image created by a person who identifies with leftist ideology. In my opinion, the image itself is practically meaningless without the artist's explanation of what it is supposed to mean. Unless we are simply looking at a still life of a fruit basket, then there is no message, just the style and skill of the artist is on display.

   

1.	Or anti-capitalist if you prefer.

[Azdgari]

Then to say that a piece of art is leftist is to make a statement about the artist, and not about the piece of art.

[jaybwell32]

Then to say that a piece of art is leftist is to make a statement about the artist, and not about the piece of art.

Perhaps. Sometimes you can tell the difference.

Lets conduct an experiment. Which one of these artists is the leftist.



or




 

[Azdgari]

Prior knowledge helps.

[jaybwell32]

easy now fuzzy little man peach...make an assessment!

[Azdgari]

No, I'm not averse to the experiment in principle, but having prior knowledge is seriously tainting it.  I have both an intellectual idea of what it's supposed to mean and an emotional reaction to it, both in place for a couple years now (or however long it's been since it was first presented to me) and the effect that has on my intuitive idea of what the art means is impossible to avoid.

Do you have some art that I'm not already familiar with?

[jaybwell32]

Do you have some art that I'm not already familiar with?

Impossible to tell...I just discovered the guy in the last couple of days as a direct result of this thread. I'll see if I can find something more obscure.

[jaybwell32]

Just a quick update...I've basically lost interest in this experiment. Chronos hasn't responded to my last comment so I'm guessing he's lost interest as well. I was rather pleased with myself for bringing the conversation back around to hatter's observation about the existence of some leftist indoctrination at the university level but nobody seemed to notice or care, so...meh.

[Chronos]

Then to say that a piece of art is leftist is to make a statement about the artist, and not about the piece of art.

Yes, I agree. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then it must be true that a person can have a preconceived idea of beauty.

An analogous example is that because Apple has made so many products that are considered beautiful (pieces of art), then everything Apple makes must be beautiful. I don't care for the iPhone 4 because it slips out of my hand. I don't buy it as a piece of art, but as a functional device, so it is not beautiful to me. For me, beauty must be more than something skin deep.

Everyone who knows of Diego Rivera's political proclivities expects his art to reflect the same, so they view his work with that light already shining on the subject. I knew nothing of Diego Rivera and didn't see the work under the same light. I'm not here to impugn the abilities or influences of art critics, but I think people will wish a particular viewpoint on a piece of art in order to make a statement.

[Chronos]

Just a quick update...I've basically lost interest in this experiment. Chronos hasn't responded to my last comment so I'm guessing he's lost interest as well. I was rather pleased with myself for bringing the conversation back around to hatter's observation about the existence of some leftist indoctrination at the university level but nobody seemed to notice or care, so...meh.

I wasn't aware of an experiment, or perhaps I don't remember one. My lack of response is directly correlated to the constant server message "resource limit reached" preventing my access.

[Frank]

Just a quick update...I've basically lost interest in this experiment. Chronos hasn't responded to my last comment so I'm guessing he's lost interest as well. I was rather pleased with myself for bringing the conversation back around to hatter's observation about the existence of some leftist indoctrination at the university level but nobody seemed to notice or care, so...meh.

I wasn't aware of an experiment, or perhaps I don't remember one. My lack of response is directly correlated to the constant server message "resource limit reached" preventing my access.

I get that as well.

[Azdgari]

Sorry.  It's all my fault.

Not really.

[jaybwell32]

I wasn't aware of an experiment, or perhaps I don't remember one.

It was here

My lack of response is directly correlated to the constant server message "resource limit reached" preventing my access.

I get that a lot too.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then it must be true that a person can have a preconceived idea of beauty.

Then it is a matter of subjective interpretation of reality. But I ask again,
what good does it do to deny the meaning the artist conveyed?

Are you suggesting that "Man At The Crossroads" does not mean what Rivera intended it to mean? I have provided no less than three sources that claim it has leftist leanings. In my own research I have not found anything from Rivera claiming otherwise.

So, you don't see the socialist propaganda in the mural. Do you suppose that is because you did not experience any left wing indoctrination at your Alma Mater?

[Azdgari]

Sounds very similar to being "indoctrinated" to believe that the word "car" refers to a transportation device.  The meaning-connection is conditioned.  But so what?

[Chronos]

Then it is a matter of subjective interpretation of reality. But I ask again,
what good does it do to deny the meaning the artist conveyed?

Are you suggesting that "Man At The Crossroads" does not mean what Rivera intended it to mean? I have provided no less than three sources that claim it has leftist leanings. In my own research I have not found anything from Rivera claiming otherwise.

So, you don't see the socialist propaganda in the mural. Do you suppose that is because you did not experience any left wing indoctrination at your Alma Mater?

First and foremost, when most people look at works of art they do so without prior knowledge of what the artist was attempting to convey. Millions of people pass through museums every year to look at art and I will assert that the vast majority of them haven't had art history classes, read art critic columns or attend openings at galleries where they can meet the artist and hear from his/her lips what meaning the work has. So, for most people, there is no preconceived notion.

Second, a visual work of art is a snapshot of time. It conveys a message particular to a moment, a situation. It cannot reliably tell a past story or project for the future. Since paragraphs of text do not accompany visual works of art, there can be different interpretations. While the artist may have meant one thing is all well and good, but unless the artist is present every time somebody views the work so that he/she can explain what the work really means, the work will be interpreted by others in their own way.

So, yes, I am saying specifically that Man at the Crossroads can and does have a different meaning than what the artist attempted to convey. On my first encounter with the work, I took a completely different meaning -- not one that was necessarily left or right, but certainly different than what he conveyed in words to others about this mural. The workers on the right side are looking leftward, which can also mean backward in time. Most people read from left to right, so most material is presented in left-to-right fashion, such as time lines. The workers on the right could be viewed as moving backward with their wants, while the people on the left left corner are looking to the right -- they are looking forward into time, but are they also looking for those on the "right" to get there? Is that why they are diverse and technologically driven? Or are they both looking to the center for something else? There are conflicting thoughts presented by the elements of this work, so I cannot view it as being "leftist" or "rightist" no matter how much Diego Rivera would wish for me otherwise. Worse, since this work of art was meant to be displayed to the public, then the artist must accept what the public thinks of it -- good, bad or just different.

Even with the Rockwell illustration shown previously, one can take from it that he is sad that the country of liberty and freedom won't let a little black girl go to a school without an escort but would rather pain "nigger" on the wall. But, a very prejudiced person could look at the same illustration and identify with it by thinking "yeah, maybe they let that girl into the school, but she is and will always be a nigger. Right on!" Artwork is often viewed without prior knowledge of what the artist was attempting to convey, so misinterpretations can lead artists into the laws of unintended consequences.

Take the swastika as an example. It was a perfectly good Jain symbol that had a perfectly good meaning until Hitler decided to co-opt it for his own dastdardly use. Consider the original meaning of the symbol and how the general public of today views the symbol. It certainly has a different meaning that what its creator attempted to convey. Go back and attempt to claim that we are all wrong with our interpretation of the swastika and see how successful you won't be. If art is a reflection of life, then in art as in life, shit happens.