Why Are Most Artists Liberal?

When was the last time any great work of art was acclaimed for it's perfect adherence to convention?

Perhaps "art" itself can be fundamentally defined as an act of rebellion against conservatism?

I would put the music of György Ligeti in this category in the sense that his piano etudes or his opera Le grand macabre (which was very warmly received at its U.S. premiere a few years ago) are token examples of how genre conventions can be adhered to and reinvented at the same time. If we go back further in time to the early- to mid-19th century, "perfect adherence to convention" was exactly what the careers of opera composers depended on. The same could be said of the German symponists in the 18th century or French opera composers in the 17th.



Again, it's an appealing thought but if one were to put it into practice, one would have a hard time accounting for the reception of the artists I mentioned on the previous pages. One would also be hard-pressed to explain the continued reverence for works like Orff's Carmina Burana or Shostakovich's 9th Symphony--i.e. works written for use in totalitarian regimes but that have nonetheless survived in today's "liberal-favoring" canon.

I don't mean conservatism in a political sense, but in an artistic one.

If any piece of art could be seen as containing nothing new (revolutionary), would it be recognized as "art" in the long term?

(In this way, much mainstream pop music is dismissed as not being true "art")

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd say medieval chants, which are some of the most cherished artworks in the canon today, pose a foil to this model because at the time they were written, the very last thing they were supposed to be was novel and "revolutionary" (even in a non-political sense), because those are qualities that could have distracted the chants from their primary purpose of communicating the sacred texts and which would consequently have landed their composers in a heap of trouble.

Without even looking at historical accuracy, I would also question whether "perfect adherence to convention" is necessarily the same as "containing nothing new." One can emulate the form of a Shakespearean sonnet, right down to its rhyme scheme and meter, without having to repeat the exact content of a pre-existing sonnet, no?

(I probably agree, but to keep the ball in play..... )

Yes, but could it be argued that the function of the chant was not "art", but rather a functional means to an end. When one studies the chants, one need only really study one or two of them to understand them all, no? The next thing you study is the next great breaking of those conventions.

As for the sonnet, if the content is new then it breaks the rule of containing nothing new.

Absolutely. But your question was whether such works would be considered art "in the long term," and medieval chants certainly seem to have passed that test. Except in a few churches in Europe, medieval chant is now performed the same way a Mozart symphony is performed: in a concert setting removed from their original context as sacred ritual (even if the concert setting is itself a church), for an audience whose role is to listen, not to participate in a mass. In other words, medieval chants are now art, and modern listeners seem not to be bothered by the fact that medieval composers were not concerned with artistic creation, let alone "new and revolutionary" artistic creation. Even Haydn and Mozart symphonies were almost entirely functional (that's why Haydn symphonies all sound the same!), serving as sonic wallpaper at aristocratic parties. For the most part it was only after their lifetimes that their symphonies were performed in exalted concert hall settings--i.e. performed as "art." And it was precisely because Haydn was a master of pre-existing conventions that he was able to churn out so many symphonies. When one is employed to produce music in mass quantities, as Haydn was, one is well-served by having a template. That same goes for Vivaldi's massive output of concertos or Bach's massive output of cantatas. Adhering to conventions was a stimulant, not a deterrent, to these composers.



Right. So it sounds like you agree that "perfect adherence to convention" is not the same as "containing nothing new," and that both can be true in the same artwork. As I suggested to Aidan on the previous page, if we define "liberal" or "revolutionary" as simply "containing something new," then sure, every artist who ever lived was a revolutionary liberal. But if that's our definition, then those words cease to mean anything important. They certainly cease to mean what I assume the author of the essay at the start of this thread had in mind.

In general, our current definition of art--the one that puts a very high premium on innovation--is a very recent one and would have been mystifying to artists of previous centuries. I'm not suggesting we stop defining art this way; I'm just pointing out that we can hold to this criterion while acknowledging that the artists we venerate did not hold to it themselves. They are wholly our standards... we might as well own up to them.

Shapeless, wonderful comments on music. You speak with the authority on music that Asherman does on Buddhism.

Nevertheless, there is less tendency for Haydn symphonies to sound "the same" from the inside. They are very distinct experiences for the musicians.

There was an interesting article in the Toronto Star, Sun June 3 Ideas
re: Randy Thornhill's controversial research into the "evolutionary roots of political preference".

The article states that psychologists have long believed that "personality traits tend to cluster together in people. Some are skeptical of tradition, open to new experiences, rebellious, pleasure-seeking egalitarian and risk-prone. Others value tradition, duty, close family relationships and security." Thornton's research indicates that the presence or absence of significant childhood stress and the strength of attachment to one or both parents tends to switch on one pattern or the other.

He suggests that conservatives do best in stable societies, say in " a village where there is plenty to eat and no marauding enemy, and the biggest danger to stability might come from internal dissatisfaction. He considers Liberals to be more effective when there is a lot of stress on a population and they have to challenge traditional ways of doing things."

"Evolution has thus fixed it so that patterns of personality are activated
in response to the environment in which they are most likely to cause an individual to thrive."

However, another research group at U Cal, Berkeley found the opposite re: childhood stress and political preference....

necessitating..........further study!

Is it possible that those artists of previous centuries who were not innovators, were also not "liberal"? Is it only current artists during this "innovation" phase that are overwhelmingly liberal (if actually true). This is point the I'm trying to make (or someone else's I'm trying to support)....that artistic innovation and liberalism may be linked.

(PS I wouldn't say Hadyn didn't innnovate. He supposedly surprised the bejesus out of everybody with No.94. Also, he was a fan of the innovation of others, especially Mozart.)

Edited for clarity...(well, more than there was....)

I knew I wasn't going to get away with that one. Your point and Eorl's is well-taken... Haydn's symphonies have no shortage of surprises, big and small. That he was was able to work them into what were still primarily "functional" works is what makes them impressive.

(EDIT: This is more or less what I meant on the previous page when I mentioned artists working fruitfully within constraints. Breaking new territory with every piece has its merit, but so too, I think, does the ability to do something clever within the old rules. It's sort of like playing Monopoly with an unlimited bank: it's easier to win, but the victory is somewhat robbed of its meaning. The truly impressive victory is when someone stays within the confines of the rules and still comes out on top.)

Can't add to the music discussion but I thought this comment by
Shapeless very interesting...

"Breaking new territory with every piece has its merit, but so too, I think, does the ability to do something clever within the old rules."

I sometimes wonder who was the more radical at the time, working within the confines of the North American art world. Was it Jackson Pollock, at the forefront, breaking the boundaries of Abstract Expressionism? Or was it Pearlstein, stubbornly persisting in his explorations of Realism, without the support of, and despite the overwelming juggernaut of Modernism?

Because creativity requires intelligence

(Sorry for the temporary hiatus.)

It is certainly possible. The reverse is also possible. For example, I don't know enough about the politics of the opera composer Giacomo Meyerbeer (the most frequently performed operatic composer of the 19th century, though he's since been consigned to the dustbin of history, partly because he's been overshadowed by more "revolutionary" composers like Wagner), but it's hard to believe he would have been sympathetic to the kind of conservatism that was making him the target of anti-Semitic denigration throughout (and after) his career.

It's not difficult to find artists of any political stripe in the "innovative" and "non-innovative" categories. Beethoven is the consummate example of an innovator who is also associated with Republican (in the 19th century sense) liberalism. But there are many counterexamples, some of which I've mentioned here. When you look at the grand picture, it's hard to find definitive links between liberalism and innovation, no matter how much it would please us to find them.

Because art is primarily a right-brained activity/skill. Right-brained people are also more emotional than left-brained people, and liberalism appeals to emotions.

Here's an interesting excerpt from an essay Stravinsky wrote about his "Octet" in 1924:

My Octet is made for an emsemble of wind instruments. Wind instruments seem to me to be more apt to render a certain rigidity of the form I had in mind than other instruments--the string instruments, for example, which are less cold and more vague.

The suppleness of the string instruments can lend itself to more subtle nunaces and can serve better the individual sensibility of the executant [i.e. the performer] in works built on an "emotive" basis.

My Octet is not an "emotive" work but a musical composition based on objective elements which are sufficient in themselves.



Continuing this logic about 15 years later, Stravinsky one said in a set of lectures at Harvard:

Most music-lovers believe that what sets the composer's creative imagination in motion is a certain emotive disturbance generally designated by the name of "inspiration."

I have no thought of denying to inspiration the outstanding role that has devolved upon it in the generative process we are studying [i.e. the act of composing music]; I simply maintain that inspiration is in no way a prescribed condition of the creative act, but rather a manifestation that is chronologically secondary.

Just a few random thoughts about your original question:

I think creativity fosters liberalism (and is fostered by liberalism).

I'm thinking of "liberalism" in terms of a general perspective--one which is open to change, comfortable with ambiguity, and non-authoritarian.

Creativity is hindered by monitoring and evaluation. It sees possibilities. It takes two (or more) seemingly disparate ideas and combines them into something new. It likes to ask "what if?" It is intuitive. It tends not to rely strictly on linear thinking.

Conservatism (as a general perspective) tends to value the old, tried-and-true means of doing/think/acting and hence may not seek out alternatives or ask "what if." Conservatism values the voice of authority.

Conservatism likes things neat, orderly, and predicable. It likes everything spelled out in black-and-white.

Liberalism, and creativity, can be messy, chaotic, and anything but predictable. Both modes of thinking like to figure things out and come to new conclusions, with an awareness there are often many grey areas.

That sounds right to me, sufficiently ambiguous.

LOL

That's what I was going for














more or less.

Because it's the only way to get airtime with all the retarded liberal DJ's?

It needs to be said.

Post here if you hear Love Grenade on the radio.