Art and its Social Purpose

Your poems will inspire people....that is reason
enough.

`
Artists, whether musicians, painters, poets, authors, or dancers are, perhaps, the true spiritual leaders and mythmakers of the world. Without a doubt the religious leaders and churches have completely fallen down on the job, and are, for the most part, totally anachronistic or even worse; perhaps they preclude spiritual sensitivity and experience. Thus, we need these artists more than ever.

Art is the DNA of our civilization. It codes our journeys, and, once recorded, remains intact for future generations to ponder.

Thank you very much guys for your words that have clarified for me. Often I feel the need to boil my mission down to one sentence, or else I forget and become overwhelmed again.

But what does inspiration do for the physically hungry person?

It may inspire those who read your poems to
action.....either in a small personal way or
on a larger scale, like volunteering for a food
bank for example. At the very least, it raises awareness.

I think it's also important to note how much art has been forged in adversity.

I will be blunt: I think that art is a stupid way to try to inspire political change. It is slow, ineffective, and reaches a small number of people.

However, art is good for expressing how you feel, and letting others know. Now, a political cartoon, a movie that is aired on the television or a brochure for a political demonstration - those are useful.

If you like writing poetry about socio-political issues, go right ahead. It might be very good, interesting poetry. Will it change the world? Highly unlikely.

And, on a side note, there is so much less suffering in the world comparitively with even 50 years ago. Medicine is advanced, we stopped blood sacrafice, food is pretty abundant. Sure, there are people who starve and are tortured and it is perfectly fine with you to allign yourself with them. But don't go blathering on about how awful the world is nowdays. We're bleeding hearts compared to much of history.

Art may reach only a small percentage of people, but historically, that small group were wealthy patrons with political influence. Things are different these days.

Now, I agree with you, PS, on the greater effectiveness of using popular media to get a message across. Personally, I think The Simpsons is one of the best written political shows I've ever seen, but it isn't really there to change the world, just entertain.

I was highly amused though when a group lobbied to get Homer to start losing weight and eat healthy foods. Sometimes people really miss the point of satire. I suppose in the end, at least people are listening.

If one wants to be an activist, truly helping people in need, like Doctors Without Borders, for example, then join an organization that is ACTIVE, and forget about art, as defined in the original post. However, don't lose sight of the fact that 'art', as a concept, is a highly subjective thing. There are helpers of the world's suffering people with an 'art' behind their craft, and there are those who lack it.

I agree with Portal Star and Cav on this issue. I have no need to use my artistic efforts to bring about political change. I prefer other methods for that. Art, to me, is not a means to the end of a Utopia; It IS utopia. It is what I see all people doing should we ever achieve a socio-political-economic-technological system that frees all people to spend most of their time at intrinsically valuable tasks. Art (of all sorts) is what we can do right now to enjoy a bit of that Utopia. But at present we must also actively struggle for social justice, political sanity and environmental responsibility. We can use our art to propaganize for the promotion of such goals, but as Portal Star notes it is not the most effective means available to us. What I am saying is that artists who do not use their art for political ends need not feel guilty, so long as they also struggle by other means.
I think that Shostakovich was politically dangerous, not because music is so powerful a force for social change, but because Stalin could not afford any challenge to his efforts at maintaining total political control. If your art did not support his program, it was, ipso facto, against it, regardless of its content.

<nod>

Osso, are you nodding in agreement or are you nodding off to sleep?

agreement

It would be good either way.

nod...

As shepaints said, it raises awareness. But it also makes people forget about their personal situation for a while, I think this is what JLN was referring to.

As an example, you can look at Cuba where the percentage of artists is incredible (couldn't find the stat) and that's a direct result of their status.

JL, I think you’re making my own case for me. Music can be politically dangerous because it has the ability to move people so deeply.

The title of this thread asks about the social purpose of art. Does that imply only a conscious purpose, a conscious attempt to sway minds through music? If so, that is relegating art and music to mere propaganda or commercialism. Music is spiritual and, and I believe music, of all the arts, exerts the strongest influence on people.

Yes, Shostakovich was dangerous to Stalin because the people may have identified with the spirit of his music rather than the "Soviet ideal." His Eighth Quartet is referred to as "the soul of Russia." Stalin had a simple way of maintaining control: he murdered any suspected dissidents which included many artists, whether they were dissidents or not. Shostakovich had a fragile immunity conferred on him by the power of his music to unite the people, a unity that could have inflamed the people against the state had the composer been murdered.

Of course, Stalin also thought he could use Shostakovich and Prokofiev to his advantage by encouraging them to write "social realism," propagandistic music. When Prokofiev returned to Russia, he collaborated with Sergei Eisenstein by writing the music for the movie, "Alexander Nevsky." The movie and music were collectively an analogy of the coming German invasion, and the purpose was to shore up the spirit of the people against the forthcoming onslaught.

Nevsky led the farmer peasants of Novgorod in the 13th century against the well-armored Teutonic knights and defeated them. The analogy compared the backwards Russians to the highly technological Germans. Prokofiev later expanded the music into an cantata, a powerful work in its own right.

I think we belittle the effect that music has had on people. True, classical music, in this country at least, has been relegated to the back rooms of a museum, but in the past it exerted a powerful influence on the people. To give an overused example consider the premier of the “Rite of Spring” by Stravinsky. Even rock music and folk music had a tremendous influence on young people during the sixties in the fomenting of social change during that era.

It’s possible that because of dominance of TV and movies in our culture the arts are brushed aside as merely more forms of entertainment.

Coluber, what you say is convincing and informative. I was only stressing that--in addition to the inspirational effects of music--Stalin could not have afforded to permit any kind of "deviation" on the part of his nation's artists. Such deviations might be interpreted as challenges to his ideological authority. In non-authoritarian political systems artistic expressions are unlikely to carry as much political potency.

I think art is a form of communication, albeit a communication beyond what can be transmitted verbally or through words. I also think music—and other art as well—is spiritual, and that's why strongly conservative, patriarchal churches ban it, unless it contains a dogmatic lyrical message.