Comments on: Art or propaganda? Both. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/07/art-or-propaganda-both/ A blog from the Poetry Foundation where contemporary poets debate classic and contemporary poetry from America and around the world. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:42:49 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Don Share http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/07/art-or-propaganda-both/#comment-4537 Don Share Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:00:58 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=973#comment-4537 One thing computers will give you, starting August 9th, is <a href="http://orwelldiaries.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Orwell's diaries in blog form</a>! One thing computers will give you, starting August 9th, is Orwell’s diaries in blog form!

]]> By: Aaron Fagan http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/07/art-or-propaganda-both/#comment-4536 Aaron Fagan Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:25:19 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=973#comment-4536 People, like computers, are useless. They can only give you answers. People, like computers, are useless. They can only give you answers.

]]> By: JDJ http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/07/art-or-propaganda-both/#comment-4535 JDJ Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:23:50 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=973#comment-4535 You make an extremely problematic generalization. This is what you said: "[A]rt oftentimes serves as a form of supplemental—and even primary—pedagogy in marginalized and oppressed communities. It’s only within the leisured classes that the instrumentality of language is deemed such a bad thing; but, then, those classes are frequently affiliated with the ruling powers from which the worst effects of instrumental language emanate." This is extremely dichotomous thinking (meaning, it's related to narrow either/or characterizations). You depict <i>both</i> "marginalized and oppressed communities" and "leisure classes" in ways that ignore human beings' complexity. Your generalization about the instrumentality of language being somehow less of a bad thing in "marginalized and oppressed communities" reminds me of old style, arm chair anthropology/sociology in which commentators looked at the art of so-called "primitive" cultures and labeled them "functionalist" or "didactic." The implication was that the "primitive" art was lacking in high aesthetic innovation but nonetheless "instrumental," to use your term, for such didactic things as fertility rites, life-skills, or local politicking. Sorry to tell you but that very reductionist perspective went out the window with advanced reasoning decades ago (although, like-as-not, it continues to reappear). It might best be said that the views of all artistic communities--including working class ones--are complicated mixtures of a variety of contending and entangled views. For example: Rap worlds may be just as concerned with the aesthetic value and the form of rap lyrics as Language poets may be, ostensibly, with their own writing's formal innovation. And each group may or may not also be interested in the "instrumentality" of their art, or its function and relationship to their everyday lives and political identities. Furthermore, your generalization covertly lumps all supposedly "marginalized and oppressed communities" together. Privilege and oppression go hand in hand. For example:<ol><li> A gay man may face great harm for being open with his orientation but still be economically privileged; <li>A self described "thug" male rapper may face great economic disadvantage yet be quite privileged in his sexist understanding of the world;<li> An African American poet named Amiri Baraka formerly married to a white Jewish woman named Hettie Jones may now continue to harbor hateful feelings towards Jewish people that complicate (if not undo) his social justice advocacy; <li>A black American working class-raised rapper may actually become quite close to the "ruling powers"--or, in fact, a ruling power himself--when, as an adult, he becomes an executive in the music industry and subsequently continues to create and promote violent and sexist music that is demeaning to black people despite his experience of oppression earlier in his life. </li></li></li></li></ol> Just these four examples show how reductionist your rhetoric is and how truly complicated human beings are:<i> one can be both marginalized and privileged at the same time in shifting ways.</i> Most of us probably live our lives within a mixture of both states with some of us tipping the scale more to some states according to changing contexts. We must be far more exacting in our rhetoric as we speak <i>with specifics and competitively gathered evidence</i> about these shifts and contexts and complications and contradictions. If we are not so exacting, then we come off sounding like people who really have no idea of working class artistic experiences (or leisure class, for that matter). Do you realize how condescending your generalization about both "marginalized" communities' and "leisure class communities" is? Again, such rhetoric does not serve the cause for which you seem to be advocating. You make an extremely problematic generalization. This is what you said:
“[A]rt oftentimes serves as a form of supplemental—and even primary—pedagogy in marginalized and oppressed communities. It’s only within the leisured classes that the instrumentality of language is deemed such a bad thing; but, then, those classes are frequently affiliated with the ruling powers from which the worst effects of instrumental language emanate.”
This is extremely dichotomous thinking (meaning, it’s related to narrow either/or characterizations).
You depict both “marginalized and oppressed communities” and “leisure classes” in ways that ignore human beings’ complexity.
Your generalization about the instrumentality of language being somehow less of a bad thing in “marginalized and oppressed communities” reminds me of old style, arm chair anthropology/sociology in which commentators looked at the art of so-called “primitive” cultures and labeled them “functionalist” or “didactic.”
The implication was that the “primitive” art was lacking in high aesthetic innovation but nonetheless “instrumental,” to use your term, for such didactic things as fertility rites, life-skills, or local politicking.
Sorry to tell you but that very reductionist perspective went out the window with advanced reasoning decades ago (although, like-as-not, it continues to reappear).
It might best be said that the views of all artistic communities–including working class ones–are complicated mixtures of a variety of contending and entangled views.
For example: Rap worlds may be just as concerned with the aesthetic value and the form of rap lyrics as Language poets may be, ostensibly, with their own writing’s formal innovation. And each group may or may not also be interested in the “instrumentality” of their art, or its function and relationship to their everyday lives and political identities.
Furthermore, your generalization covertly lumps all supposedly “marginalized and oppressed communities” together.
Privilege and oppression go hand in hand.
For example:
  1. A gay man may face great harm for being open with his orientation but still be economically privileged;
  2. A self described “thug” male rapper may face great economic disadvantage yet be quite privileged in his sexist understanding of the world;
  3. An African American poet named Amiri Baraka formerly married to a white Jewish woman named Hettie Jones may now continue to harbor hateful feelings towards Jewish people that complicate (if not undo) his social justice advocacy;
  4. A black American working class-raised rapper may actually become quite close to the “ruling powers”–or, in fact, a ruling power himself–when, as an adult, he becomes an executive in the music industry and subsequently continues to create and promote violent and sexist music that is demeaning to black people despite his experience of oppression earlier in his life.

Just these four examples show how reductionist your rhetoric is and how truly complicated human beings are: one can be both marginalized and privileged at the same time in shifting ways.
Most of us probably live our lives within a mixture of both states with some of us tipping the scale more to some states according to changing contexts. We must be far more exacting in our rhetoric as we speak with specifics and competitively gathered evidence about these shifts and contexts and complications and contradictions. If we are not so exacting, then we come off sounding like people who really have no idea of working class artistic experiences (or leisure class, for that matter).
Do you realize how condescending your generalization about both “marginalized” communities’ and “leisure class communities” is? Again, such rhetoric does not serve the cause for which you seem to be advocating.

]]>