From: "Luben Karavelov" <luben-AT-airfair.net>
Subject: Re: art/capital
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 07:24:53 +0300


John Appleby whote:

>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.

I have a different understanding of revolutionary art. So I would like to
pose
some questions:

Is it Socialist Realism revolutionary art, or the drama of absurd of Daniel
Harms
is revolutionary? (the art of DH was treated by the soviet power as
reactionary)

Is it the National Socialist art revolutionary, or the art of Paul Klee,
Vasilii Kandinski
and Bauhaus is revolutionary? If you say that NS art is revolutionary, does
it mean
that the art of Bauhaus is 'degenerate art'? (the Bauhaus school was closed
by the
nazis)