The artistic experience

[Louanne Learning]

@Trish - I apologize if there has been any misunderstanding on my part.

But since you're devoted to the subject

This presents as passive-aggressive

 

[Trish]

This presents as passive-aggressive

It was an honest question - how do you feel about Norman Rockwell?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Norman Rockwell?

Each of his paintings do tell a story

 

[Trish]

Each of his paintings do tell a story

Is he an artist?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Is he an artist?

Lol, why do I feel like I am being entrapped ... but, yes, of course he is an artist

 

[Schism]

Lol, why do I feel like I am being entrapped ... but, yes, of course he is an artist

Entrapment is the language of the internet.

 

[Trish]

Lol, why do I feel like I am being entrapped ... but, yes, of course he is an artist

It's not intended to be a trap, it's intended to be eye opening. His early works were propaganda. It doesn't make him less of an artist, or his paintings tell less of a story.

 

[Louanne Learning]

His early works were propaganda

Well, quite obviously that's not the kind of propaganda I had in mind.

We were talking about Hitler

 

[Schism]

We were talking about Hitler

I thought we weren't allowed to talk about Hitler.

 

[Louanne Learning]

thought we weren't allowed to talk about Hitler.

Only as an artist - besides, I'm pretty sure it's only current politics that are off limits

 

[Trish]

Well, quite obviously that's not the kind of propaganda I had in mind.

We were talking about Hitler

I'm not going to quote your many comments about propaganda>false>not art>not an artist. (paraphrased of course).

Propaganda is propaganda. It doesn't matter what the result is or who created it. Disagreeing with it or agreeing with it doesn't change what it is. You implied that the art must be "true" and if it's propaganda no one can connect with it (again, paraphrasing). I'm just saying that's the falsehood. You don't get to decide who qualifies as an artist based on their personal morality or their thoughts while creating it. You only get to judge the result. The art.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Discussion of politics in the abstract is fine. Discussion of historical figures such as Hitler is fine, provided it is relevant (it is here). Discussion of politics as a tool of human influence is also fine. It's a writing forum and it is difficult to discuss certain elements of writing without considering how it has been used to influence opinion (politics) since its inception, so it's lot like the subject of politics itself is completely off limits.

What is not fine is the discussion of politics to push or broadcast your own ideology, thoughts, and opinions. Or any politically adjacent subject that is likely to devolve into inflammatory discussion, which, unfortunately is just about everything on the Internet these days. Personally, I'd like to think this particular community could discuss such things politely and intelligently, but that is no longer the case with any cadre of humans, so it will continue to be off limits.

We used to have a debate room for things like this but canned that years ago because nobody was able to grasp the basic tenets of debate--namely the evidence over opinion part.

The question was regarding artistic experience. Louanne and some quotable artists believe it's a thing, but it doesn't appear as if anyone else is living la vida loca in that regard. Bring the discussion back to that, please.

 

[Louanne Learning]

You don't get to decide who qualifies as an artist based on their personal morality or their thoughts while creating it.

I don't think I did this. Here are a couple of my previous quotes -

Art may reflect dark themes, too.

empathy is the ability to share and understand the feelings of others.

there is no qualifier on the ability that the feelings must only be "good"

And nowhere in my "equation" do I mention anything about the "vice and virtue" of the writer

As far as writing is concerned, its art has something to do with this -

a restless mind + questions + contemplation + quest for understanding + a desire to share + a need for expression + honesty/truth + love of language + discipline

But I will add that I do have my opinions, and I am entitled to them

 

[Louanne Learning]

Lively discussion! Let’s see if I can clarify some of my points.

True art must express something that is true to the artist.

False propaganda cannot be true art.

Normal Rockwell painted true scenes from American life. Those scenes were true to him.

His art is true, so propaganda can be true.

Propaganda may have dual purposes – to influence, or to manipulate.

Does true art influence? Yes

Does false propaganda manipulate? Yes

False propaganda is often designed for negative effects – like stoking fear and hate against a perceived enemy

Positive propaganda is often designed for honourable outcomes – in the case of Rockwell, boosting morale, unifying community and the country, and defining positive values

 

[Homer Potvin]

Propaganda may have dual purposes – to influence, or to manipulate.

What's the difference?

unifying community and the country

Against whom? The communist threat that the US would go to war with all over the globe?

and defining positive values

By depicting white people having picnics in an otherwise segregated America?

That's the beauty of propaganda. It's easily cloaked as "honourable outcomes." Hook. Line. Sinker.

 

[Naomasa298]

People who are recognised as artists are usually the ones who are least likely to go around insisting that what they do is art.

 

[Louanne Learning]

What's the difference?

Manipulation is the negative form of influence. It's often self-serving and deceptive, used often for the manipulator's personal gain

Against whom?

Rockwell painted his "propaganda" pictures during WW2

By depicting white people having picnics in an otherwise segregated America?

Rockwell's move to Look magazine finally allowed him to reflect the growing racial tension in the US of the 1950s and 1960s

Three of his paintings -

Southern Justice



New Kids in the Neighborhood



The Problem We All Live With (A painting of Ruby Bridges that Obama had hung in the White House in 2011)

 

[Trish]

What's the difference?




Against whom? The communist threat that the US would go to war with all over the globe?


By depicting white people having picnics in an otherwise segregated America?

That's the beauty of propaganda. It's easily cloaked as "honourable outcomes." Hook. Line. Sinker.

Yes. You said exactly what I was about to say.

 

[Trish]

Manipulation is the negative form of influence. It's often self-serving and deceptive, used often for the manipulator's personal gain

But you don't know any of that if you're just looking at a painting of a landscape, do you?

Rockwell's move to Look magazine finally allowed him to reflect the growing racial tension in the US of the 1950s and 1960s

So he redeemed himself? Or what? His freedom series has a very different vibe.

 

[Louanne Learning]

But you don't know any of that if you're just looking at a painting of a landscape, do you?

I don't know what you're talking about. I never said his landscape paintings were propaganda.

So he redeemed himself? Or what? His freedom series has a very different vibe.

I was replying to Homer