Art and Morality

[Forostar]

Note from Perun: This discussion originated in the Madness Forum, as a follow-up to this post. I felt it deserved more attention, so I moved it to its own thread. Since this originates with Forostar, he has the last word on whether the new thread title is appropriate or not. Forostar's original post now follows.

And now for something completely different, a typical random L.A. moment:   bumped into Neil Peart at the Borders bookstore in Century City.  Spoke very briefly to him, he was friendlier than his reputation.  Thanked him for the years of great music and said I was looking forward to the new album.

Holy cow. Awesome!

@Perun, I am going to ask you something. I expect you to know way more about the following, so I might phrase it incorrectly, but well, here goes:

Doesn't it bother you (not even a bit?) that this beautiful art from that picture was probably financed by the oppression and sacking of many beautiful places which unfortunately were conquered by the Ottomans?

Maybe I think like this, because I visited Crete three months ago, and I know how much they have suffered under the Ottomans.

Probably you'll say the same of "Catholic art" or the Dutch wealth (when we ruled the Seven seas ). I guess any reign can be criticized but I think that the Ottoman reign was quite cruel, wasn't it?

How do you distinguish art and its possible negative relation with history? I probably do it too, constantly, but I am curious how that works for you.

When I gaze from an impressive fort, at the surrounding landscape which was ruled from there, I am still in awe by the fort itself. I love old buildings, and sometimes I even wish I could time-travel to medieval times and be a witness of a siege.

Do you have something with art, and go back in time as well? Cheers.

 

[LooseCannon]

Re: Let's try and get 100,000 replies to this post

I guess my answer to that is simple.

Every single piece of art from pre-Renaissance has been from an imperial power of not-so-nice status. You just have to remember that if we tossed out everything good that came from evil empires, we'd be starting over again...every single time.

 

[Perun]

Re: Let's try and get 100,000 replies to this post

Well, Foro. Here's what I encountered with today: The house I live in was built by a government that enslaved entire countries in Africa and the Pacific, and started the First World War. The supermarket I went to earlier today is run by a company that employs labour slaves, sells goods by dubious companies and is essentially the German branch of Wal Mart. My cellphone was made by a company that sold surveillance software to Iran (together with the company my dad works for) and monitors its employees. Earlier today I watched a video on an internet platform that censors contents in Turkey, Thailand and Germany. My grandparents wouldn't have met if my granddad wouldn't have fought in the battle of Stalingrad. I was born in the town that is infamous for being the site of the first nazi concentration camp. The only reason why I'm able to write all this is because the country I live in did things that were so bad around 60 million people died by direct consequence and other countries occupied it and democratised it by force. I'm not even going to get into what this country lives off nowadays.
And I've had a pretty boring and uneventful day so far.

In other words: My entire cultural and personal background is so full of guilt, shame and sin that it would be hypocritical to get worked up about one two-hundred year old piece of art from another country in a museum. I am aware of the backgrounds, but you also have to think about the fact that this thing was not only commissioned by an inhumane government, but also made by an artist who deseres credit for his work. As LC said, Europe has more than its share of imperial artwork which is in no way more stain-free.

 

[LooseCannon]

Re: Let's try and get 100,000 replies to this post

The above is one of the greatest posts this forum has ever seen.

 

[Perun]

Re: Let's try and get 100,000 replies to this post

Cheers.

As a postscript, please don't think I feel offended by your post or question Foro. But that is how I manage to distinguish.

 

[Forostar]

Re: Let's try and get 100,000 replies to this post

Interesting. I realize that I asked your ideas about this Perun, but if I may, I still like to answer from my point of view.
Even though this post was crafted very well, and the way you described the meeting between your grandparents was impressive, I do not entirely feel the same about this.

Naturally I am not a German (and I don't feel this national trauma ("we can't criticize other oppression in the world, present or past, because we oppressed others ourself") we've discussed several times on this forum, a trauma which is finally going to be smaller -> look at the Hitler museum, look at the fact that Germans fight in Afghanistan, look at the fact that German soldiers are stationned in France, since last week..etc. This may have a lot to do with our different ideas.

I have this handicap with admiring something positive when something negative is overshadowing it.

To be frank, I personally find it hard to admire anything that has to do with the Ottoman reign, because I have the idea that this reign still has left stains in the present, more than in the west. Look at how nationalistic Turkey still is. Look at how they still treat the Kurds, and still deny the genocide.

I live in 2010, in a country where many things are going worse than before. Our government is one, that more nationalistic. The government is spending way less money on development in Africa, we seem to care less about poor people. More and more people listen to Wilders and take over his polarizing ideas. So currently, I indeed live in a world of guilt.

At the same time I realize I have not voted for this government, and I don't feel so guilty myself, because I don't practice the crap they preach.

I probably buy food and products which were made in bad working conditions, but as soon I find out about it, I'll try to change choice. I think there will be a new rule for supermarkets, which labels halal food explicitly (animals slaughtered while they still feel it). This is something I find good, just as I like WikiLeaks. I rather mention the bad instead of not wanting to know it.

I am aware of the backgrounds, but you also have to think about the fact that this thing was not only commissioned by an inhumane government, but also made by an artist who deseres credit for his work. As LC said, Europe has more than its share of imperial artwork which is in no way more stain-free.

This is for me the most convincing, and indeed art should be seen as an independent craft (just like Tom Cruise portrayed Von Stauffenberg *runs in opposite direction of Berlin*).

 

[Perun]

Re: Let's try and get 100,000 replies to this post

To be frank, I personally find it hard to admire anything that has to do with the Ottoman reign, because I have the idea that this reign still has left stains in the present, more than in the west. Look at how nationalistic Turkey still is. Look at how they still treat the Kurds, and still deny the genocide.

Yes, but then you can't admire a piece of Roman, Post-Alexandrian Greek, French, English, Chinese, Japanese, Russian and yes, even Dutch piece of art. All these were empires that left their negative mark on the world. It's not the individual Turk's fault what the Ottomans did. I'm sorry, but I find it hypocritical to single out.

 

[Forostar]

No I don't mean it's the individual Turk's fault, it's just these dogmas which are still hanging over the country I dislike. I see these as connections with the past, more than in several other countries. I feel the same dislike for Russia, Japan and China. A country which denies its past cannot get my approval.

And unfortunately this narrows my appreciation for art from these areas. It goes against the grain in my nature. It's almost like some voice is saying: "First solve some things, then I am going to admire you for something, on a larger scale."

(I still like some films by Japanese and Russian filmmakers who were more critical (you could say more "Western" in their thinking, so I am not entirely banning art from those countries).

---

The title is appropriate, Per. I realize that the things I say are controversial, and but I am open for other opinions, and learn how to deal with this 'handicap'.

 

[Perun]

I hope it's alright that I dedicated a new thread to this discussion.

No I don't mean it's the individual Turk's fault, it's just these dogmas which are still hanging over the country I dislike. I see these as connections with the past, more than in several other countries. I feel the same dislike for Russia, Japan and China. A country which denies its past cannot get my approval.

A country or a government? No offence, but I think that sometimes you mix up the two. You can't equate a people with it's government, not even when it is a democracy, because chances are that half its people oppose the politics.
Of course I reject Turkey's history politics, and I know that many Turks follow the official view on the country's past, but that is because they got educated with it, and unlike other countries were never told to view what they read on controversial subjects critically. And also because other things are more important to them, not everybody is a history buff. There are many critical Turks, and they are getting more as we speak.

And unfortunately this narrows my appreciation for art from these areas. It goes against the grain in my nature. It's almost like some voice is saying: "First solve some things, then I am going to admire you for something, on a larger scale."

But what does the artist who designed the Aleppo Room (incidentally, I read the other day that two Persian designers were comissioned with it) have to do with that? He never commited a genocide on the Armenians.

(I still like some films by Japanese and Russian filmmakers who were more critical (you could say more "Western" in their thinking, so I am not entirely banning art from those countries).

But apparently, you only accept it when it is westernised. That is understandable, we are from the western world, so naturally we prefer something that complies more with our sense of aesthetics. But that is far from appreciating the country's indigenous art. And what is more, this mind-set leads many artists and intellectuals from these countries to reject that notion and banish any western influence from their work. You know, sometimes art is unpolitical. Sometimes it is more of an expression of a certain mindset or zeitgeist. Only the appreciation of a culture for what it is will make it obvious why it needs to be preserved.

 

[Forostar]

I hope it's alright that I dedicated a new thread to this discussion.

A country or a government? No offence, but I think that sometimes you mix up the two. You can't equate a people with it's government, not even when it is a democracy, because chances are that half its people oppose the politics.
Of course I reject Turkey's history politics, and I know that many Turks follow the official view on the country's past, but that is because they got educated with it, and unlike other countries were never told to view what they read on controversial subjects critically. And also because other things are more important to them, not everybody is a history buff. There are many critical Turks, and they are getting more as we speak.

I am afraid I indeed identify -too much- the bulk of the people as people who agree with their government, and who don't question (enough) their own ways. That last sentence of yours is encouraging.

But what does the artist who designed the Aleppo Room (incidentally, I read the other day that two Persian designers were comissioned with it) have to do with that? He never commited a genocide on the Armenians.

Correct, well, I said I might be wrong, and I certainly was.

But apparently, you only accept it when it is westernised. That is understandable, we are from the western world, so naturally we prefer something that complies more with our sense of aesthetics.

I don't mean to stigmatize everything that is non-Western, but I like the critical openness (what a word) and rebellion against conservative norms in the West.

But that is far from appreciating the country's indigenous art. And what is more, this mind-set leads many artists and intellectuals from these countries to reject that notion and banish any western influence from their work. You know, sometimes art is unpolitical. Sometimes it is more of an expression of a certain mindset or zeitgeist. Only the appreciation of a culture for what it is will make it obvious why it needs to be preserved.

I agree wholeheartedly with that last sentence. I even work in a place where we preserve publications made in the Netherlands, even if some of them are very controversial.  It doesn't mean I have to admire these publications of course, but you get my point. It's historically important.

Next time I need to be more careful and judge each object and artist individually before I connect it with the country involved.

 

[Perun]

I am afraid I indeed indentify -too much- the bulk of the people as people who agree with their government, and who don't question (enough) their own ways. That last sentence of yours is encouraging.

The thing is, of course there are occasions when people stand behind their government. And this of course also happens in instances when from our point of view, it is obviously taking a wrong stance or whatever. But I don't think we should be quick to judge, but find out why they are doing that, because that way, we can argue with them better, or persuade them from our viewpoints.
A good example of how complex these matters can be may be the 1978/79 Revolution in Iran. I know I'm a bit annoying with Iran and all that, but that's simply the topic I am best aquainted with. Here we have a popular movement that brought down an inhumane dictatorship and traded it with another one. I have spent a long time trying to pinpoint the moment when the popular movement ended and the new government became detached from its own people again. There was a time when Khomeini stood for the people and had their full support, but that time was short.

I don't mean to stigmatize everything that is non-Western, but I like the critical openness (what a word) and rebellion against conservative norms in the West.

I like the western conception of art and culture the best as well, and how couldn't I? But the exciting part about studying other cultures is when you figure out that people there have the same ideas as we do, and rebel against conservative norms the same way it is done here - the only difference is that it is not so apparent to us, because we both have a different sense of aesthetics and different conservative norms. Someone not aquainted with ancient Egyptian art, for instance, will not be able to tell the difference between a statue or a bas-relief from 2000 BC and 500 BC. But an art historian or someone with better knowledge of Egyptian history will see that on the surface, alterations may be subtle, but in their meaning, they may be radical.


I'm taking a lot of interest in this discussion and hope others will contribute, because it touches the subject I am currently working on in my BA thesis, at least part of which can be called "art as propaganda" (in ancient Iran, of course). I'd be quite interested in hearing some opinions on this matter: Would you say that art that is conceived as propaganda can still be called art?

Don't be afraid to Godwin the discussion either. I'm gonna do it for you: Hitler.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

When it comes to identifying a people with its government, I just find that wrong. Few voters agree with every decision their government makes, and often there is one particular issue that a party successfully uses to win voters. One might vote for a party with which one agrees on the issues one finds most important, despite disagreeing (or not having an opinion at all) on a lot of other issues.

 

[Taker]

Would you say that art that is conceived as propaganda can still be called art?

Certainly. One of the purposes of art of any kind is to stir some sort of emotion. I recall seeing a Nazi propaganda poster from 1945 depicting a defiant German mother and her children. The caption was "German mothers, fight for your children!" I found it horrifying... but this horror would also have acted as a motivator on every German that saw it's message. Art's power to arouse emotion in us isn't negated by a political origin.

 

[Forostar]

I'd be quite interested in hearing some opinions on this matter: Would you say that art that is conceived as propaganda can still be called art?

Art is craft, art is substance.

From a technical perspective, when something is created it could be called art.

But when we talk about inspiration, own initiative and the freedom to create... such elements are very limited or even non-existant when looking at propaganda. When politicians or important religious heads use art to explain a certain subject, then for the biggest part the inspiration and initiative are not coming from the artist himself. He's told to do what he needs to do. Of course, his technical abilities and perhaps even his own style show his own mark and "freedom" how to do it. But then, art is merely a form, to tell a greater tale. The substance is not original, it is something that is repeated many times, to indoctrinate.

I had some discussions with my wife (and my father) about Riefenstahl. They said that she really portrayed this nazi propaganda very well. I felt there was some admiration. I, however, feel that the subject of the matter is overwhelming the technique and style. It's always impressive to see those huge armies marching, to hear Hitler shouting. Yes, she may have done it with her own approach, but still I do not find her ways so impressive, because I see her as the "carrier" of something bigger. Someone else could have done that as well, I am sure. I can't prove it but I am confident that someone else would have been found. Fritz Lang was also asked to do propaganda but he didn't do it. Did the propaganda machine fail? No, it did not.

A propaganda artist is an actor in a big production of someone else.
A non-propaganda artist is a director of his own production.

To come back at the question: yes, propaganda can be called art, but realize how it is created, and how little diversity the message (the substance) contains.

 

[____no5]

Now, this is 100% debatable, but I have the impression that Ottomans were among the smoothest conquerors in history. I don't mean what they may did in order to conquer a place, but how they kept countries under their rule during centuries...

[...]

The above is one of the greatest posts this forum has ever seen.

And this was my absolutely best moment out of that post
|
|
V

And I've had a pretty boring and uneventful day so far.

 

 

[Forostar]

Per, did you read our posts? Credit us if you're going to use anything of it.  

 

[Deleted member 7164]

And i agree with no5 regarding the Ottomans.

Forostar, you can't judge them solely by what you read. History is not accurate, it's written by winners and full of propaganda.
My late grandma's family has Ottoman surname, that's how far they got here. I've got a family in Bosnia, and a story to tell you; Ottomans, when progressing through present-day Bosnia, entered a small town near Sarajevo. Town's leadership was diplomatic, and they said they don't want any bloodshed or fighting, eg. they surrender. Ottomans said they are now a part of empire and need to pay a monthly fee (called harac). That's it. It was a Christian town. They left their churches, their rituals, everything. Once a month, an envoy would come to pick up the fee.

Now tell me, did your own people treat surrendering countries as good?

 

[Perun]

But when we talk about inspiration, own initiative and the freedom to create... such elements are very limited or even non-existant when looking at propaganda. When politicians or important religious heads use art to explain a certain subject, then for the biggest part the inspiration and initiative are not coming from the artist himself.

To stir this up a bit: I claim that 90% of all art ever created is in the service of either political or, mostly, religious propaganda. I challenge you to name five world-famous pieces of art from the top of your head that are free from any religious or political connotation, not created in 19th to 20th century western Europe.

 

[Forostar]

My own country? Most recent wrongdoings happened in Indonesia. The Dutch thought they treated the Indonesians well but there wasn't revolt for nothing.

Zare, I believe what you know, but I also believe what I know. Crete is a fine example of oppression of the Ottomans. Link
Maybe they were more nice to people who didn't resist?

Perun, I don't know enough about artists and their roles in politics and religion to answer that question from the top of my head. But I am sure there are some artists not connected with the terror of the Ottomans, the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Japan or any other mass murdering governments.

I wonder how much Jeroen Bosch and Pieter Brueghel the Elder were in the service of political or religious propaganda. I can't imagine that they did religious propaganda. Rather the opposite.

And why leave out the 19th and 20th century? My previous post didn't exclude art and propaganda of the last 200 years.

 

[Perun]

And why leave out the 19th and 20th century? My previous post didn't exclude art and propaganda of the last 200 years.

Because my point is that secular art - i.e. that devoid of religious motivation - is an invention of Europe after the French Revolution. If you say art can't be religiously motivated, then there is hardly any art at all in human history.