by Trotsky » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:49 pm
by WCMeyer » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:04 pm
by Waleis » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:07 pm
by nmoore63 » Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:51 pm
by Dr. Strangelove » Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:43 pm
by WCMeyer » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:25 pm
Dr. Strangelove wrote:It can work the other way. The Soviets produced some of the greatest artists of the time. Also, consider the story of Arvo Pärt. He refused to renounce his Christianity so the communists relegated him to writing choral music rather than symphonies.
He took that "punishment" and produced the greatest choral music ever. His music is incredible. It's like a three dimensional space you can explore. In his case, can it not be argued that tyranny honed his art into something so incredible? Out of his oppression came true beauty.
by Dr. Strangelove » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:43 pm
by Waleis » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:47 pm
by WCMeyer » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:08 pm
Dr. Strangelove wrote:Are you kidding me? The Soviets were able to put quite a lot more of their GDP towards the arts then we ever could. Same with sports. Anything like that was considered a way of showcasing the superiority of communism. If a child showed promise at an early age, they were shipped off to academies to learn from the masters. An artist would be taken care of for life. In America.. yeah. Cat food and food stamps.
by WCMeyer » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:19 pm
by Dr. Strangelove » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:22 pm
by WCMeyer » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:44 pm
Dr. Strangelove wrote:Reality contradicts you. Ever heard of a guy named Mozart? Bach?
What capitalistic nations produce is a lot of popular music and art. Commercial material, which is great. But don't discount high art. That is where authoritarian nations will always come out ahead. Subsidizing the arts is rather common for them. It is a way to illustrate their legitimacy to both their own people and the rest of the world.
We don't have anything like that. Our nation helps people become popular (profitable) artists. But most artists starve until they take up minimum wage jobs and live out their lives in squalor. We have very little art subsidies relative to our actual wealth as a nation. Our national soul is reflected by our poverty in the arts. If we truly are so great, then we should have quite a lot more art and culture than we do. Instead we live in this factory-like society.
If anything, the very opposite can be argued to a point. An authoritarian nation can always outperform a capitalistic nation because there is little economic value in art. Tell me how much is a pianist worth? But then how many of us can do what he does? We don't properly value things in such a society. In an authoritarian society, the regime in charge could very likely put a great deal of emphasis on art to illustrate their people and culture. They often do find great value in the arts that our nation will never do.
And try as you might, your little hipster band they play at StarBucks is not the equivalent of Arvo Par.
by Smitty-48 » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:47 pm
WCMeyer wrote: And you couldn't hear a loud guitar in Russia 'till '91,
by WCMeyer » Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:51 pm
Smitty-48 wrote:WCMeyer wrote: And you couldn't hear a loud guitar in Russia 'till '91,
Proof the Soviets did get some things right.
by Dr. Strangelove » Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:58 pm