Blogcritics: Comments on Can the morals

Comment by Vern Halen

Sun, 8 Aug 2004 08:15:36 EDT

Discussions about the nature of art and its relationship to reality have be going on since forever, and won't be finished anytime soon. In the modern world, even apolitical art is considered to have a political stance. I think the best a writer or artist can hope for is that his or her art will connect with an audience and help them with their own understanding of the way the world is, or maybe at least the way it should be. BTW, best political song - Little Feat's A Apolitcal Blues: "Well my telephone was ringing And they told me it was Chairman Mao Well my telephone was ringing And they told me it was Chairman Mao You can tell him anything 'Cause I just don't wanna talk to him now " - Lowell George

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:36:58 EDT

A lot depends on the approach. A lot of overtly political songs are just garbage that nobody would take seriously if they didn't have the "correct" political message. The entire catalogue of Rage Against the Machine comes to mind. A lot of the problem is that the lack of creative imagination in TUNES also comes out in the lyrics. A lot of this crap is just boilerplate, or dumb pinko talking points. On the other hand, writing a song about a specific situation and characters can be very effective. Taking a trip in the way-back machine, dig on "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll." Of course, it helps that this has a MELODY. Telling a story with political subtexts of a more subtle nature tends to be more effective. Steve Earle telling the family story on "Copperhead Road" has all kinds of interesting implications, but not just a dumb bludgeoning left-wing harangue. It's not putting politics into art that's bad, but NOT putting imagination into it. Substituting cheap applause lines in the lyrics for a TUNE or anything thoughtful to actually challenge an audience in the lyrics just doesn't get it. Here's an example of a really GOOD political song, partly because it's only about politics secondarily to the tune and the (real) characters. What do any of y'all think of this one?

Comment by BB

Sat, 7 Aug 2004 14:17:10 EDT

Then I suppose we will have to demonize most of the protest songs written in the latter half of the 60's. Four dead on O-hi-oh well.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:14:42 EDT

Whoops! Had a pesky cut that was left over from another 'paste'. Sorry! Try again, shark. ============ "It's possible to have a moral neutral work of art if questions are asked instead of solutions given." Of course it is; and it's also possible to have great art that's political and/or moral. Some is implicit (your 'asking question' example), and some is explicit (Steve Earle's "America Version 6.0"). Amyway, yer splittin' imaginary hairs.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:12:42 EDT

"I've never had a better job than I do now." Of course it is; and it's also possible to have great art that's political and/or moral. Some is implicit (your 'asking question' example), and some is explicit (Steve Earle's "America Version 6.0"). Amyway, yer splittin' imaginary hairs.

Comment by Celestial Dung

Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:05:30 EDT

It's possible to have a moral neutral work of art if questions are asked instead of solutions given. A good example is "Blowing in the Wind" which to this day confuses the hell out of people. No solution is given rather questions are asked. The problem I have with sermon art is that the artists feel that having a point thrust into my head is more important then making exceptional art. Admitedly morals slick out. Wilde's work was exceptionally moral and yet he proclaimed himself a comple art for art's celibrate. Tolkien hated symbolism and perferred pure story over moral tale and yet thinks slipped out of his Christian upbrining. But there is a difference i believe in morality being subconscience in art and being in the forefront. The former can offer debate while the latter only offers agreement.

Comment by Kurt Nordstrom

Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:51:31 EDT

I think, to some degreee, that most, if not all, revelevant art expresses some kind of opinion. It is the medium of communication from the artist to the world. I don't believe that you can completely separate the artist's soul from his or her work. To this degree, all art is political. I agree with Shark about the good and bad of art. Some works just suck. Other shine. A good piece of political art should at least make the other side take a look at it, if not agree with it.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:31:30 EDT

BTW: It could also be argued that every great work of narrative art has a "moral", whether obvious or hidden -- and that moral might even be a major component of what makes it 'great'.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:28:32 EDT

Dung, I believe Duke Ellington's statement, "There are only two kinds of music: good and bad" --applies to art as well. There have been many great works of art that were either implicitly or explicitly 'political', 'moral', or social criticisms. And I can think of a few recent songs that meet the criteria as well. (Picasso, Goya, Neil Young, and Steve Earle come to mind right off the bat, among many others too numerous to list...)

Comment by Celestial Dung

Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:21:31 EDT

Postscript I apologize in advance for making a mess out of the board with repeated postings and mixing my Excerpts with my attachments. When I make a mess I make a mess.