Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 02:17:21 +0100
Subject: Re: art/capital
From: "John Appleby" <pyrew-AT-csv.warwick.ac.uk>


Edwin Coleman <edwincoleman-AT-mail.bigpond.com> wrote:

>ground the real question : can art be revolutionary ? Is there any evidence
>that anyone except a few artists think it ever was ? 

There's a long tradition of people thinking that art can be revolutionary
going back at least as far as Plato's _Republic_. 

However, in case you think that philosopher's don't count, consider: 
(i) The USSR's promotion of Socialist Realism as the only form of
revolutionary art.
(ii) The National Socialist's reaction to 'degenerate art' in general, and
Berlin Dada in particular.

>Is there any evidence that it ever was ?

The devlopement of rave culture in this country was perceived as threatening
enough by the government to convince them to place new laws on the statute
books giving the police new powers to break up such proceedings. 

Governments are certainly quick to censor artists in many parts of the
globe. This would seem to imply that they perceive cerain types of art as
threatening.

Regards

John

Thought for the day:
'Science is today completely integrated into an extraordinary diversity of
industrial plans, and its own autonomy seems almost inconceivable'
(Klossowski, Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle, p. 145).