I am asking about the level on which art can play in addressing social and political issues. — Jack Cummins

Emotional or subconscious level.

How far should it be seen as an aesthetic quest or one which is part of a cultural statement? — Jack Cummins

It can be either or both.

How influential can art be in raising consciousness? — Jack Cummins

Very, I would say, but being so subject it’s notoriously difficult to quantify results.

To what extent is the artist just expressing personal feelings? — Jack Cummins

Even in commercial art creators are expressing themselves to some degree.

Is there any danger if art, music or fiction is too 'dark', such as metal music? — Jack Cummins

Anything that has the power to influence can be used for nefarious or selfish purposes, and that being the case, art that is too ‘light’ can be dangerous.

Does it matter what art we create? — Jack Cummins

If it didn’t then art wouldn’t matter.

Every artist’s job is to transfigure a genuine experience into a cultural good. The artist will not intellectually process the experience to reach its comprehension at the universality level; he will record it in the most eminently communicable way possible. Of course sometimes it’s not that easily communicated. Sometimes it can be so subtle that, no matter how hard he tries to be clear, it won’t be very clear — you’ll have to crack your head a little to know what he’s talking about. Not to mention the fact that to understand his experience, you will need to have sufficient maturity or imagination — if not, you will understand nothing.

It is also possible for the artist, in addition to fueling cultural memory with his art, making it a vehicle of intelligence and transforming art into a concept. He can do that, although he is not obligated. There are artists who worked with a very clear intellectual awareness of what they were doing, such as Henry James, who wrote an explanatory preface for each of his novel. Sometimes the preface was even better than the book. Others would not even be able to explain how they did the book, because their job is not to explain, but to do. Once done, that genuine, true experience is recorded. Hence you can easily distinguish what is genuine experience from mere copied experience, stereotype repetition (which is a thing that has little memory content and is just word repetition).

I am glad that you think that art matters in many ways because I believe that there are many people who don't, including some people who value philosophy highly. I would say that art does have a major impact at a subconscious level.

It is also interesting that you suggest that art can be too 'light,' I would say that it can be about surface and lack depth. Perhaps that which 'dark' has the ability to explore the subconscious and explore the unknown.

Perhaps that which 'dark' has the ability to explore the subconscious and explore the unknown. — Jack Cummins

And express/reflect some aspect of culture. If a kid supposedly commits suicide from listening to too much Marilyn Manson doesn't that imply that everything was good in their life up until the exposure to MM, that the kid lived in some kind of utopian paradise rather than the culture that MM, and the kid, are both products of?

Your response is mostly about whether artists are processing the underlying the cultural meaning of what they are creating. I am sure that many people making art in its various forms are not thinking that much about this, especially in popular art. If you take many best selling authors I am sure that the biggest concern is about making money and also about public creditably. I am sure that is the case in music too. Concerns about popularity can have such a negative effect. It is often that many rock bands music appears to deteriorate once they become mainstream.

The whole idea of art as involving concepts is interesting. Here, it is a conscious intention and we can think of all the various movements ranging from surrealism in art to the idea of punk or glam rock. Of course, beyond the movements we have all the unique concepts the individuals, such the whole idea of the stream of consciousness in James Joyce's novels.

The theme you have raised between subtle and conscious is one that is so vast that it could in itself be made into a dissertation.

Your comment captivates the element which I was thinking about when I was creating the debate, especially as I have a fascinating with music which is extremely dark. In particular, I became interested in metal music when I was studying art therapy. It seemed to be a way of exploring my own shadow side.

Your mention of Marilyn Manson is particularly important because he was and probably is interested in the whole idea of Jung's idea of the shadow. I know this because I read his autobiography. Actually, he said that he thought he was the antichrist at one point. However, over a period of time this idea lessened. He has read a fair amount of philosophy. I have a few of his albums although I don't listen to them very much. I would say that the one that is the most listenable is 'Mechanical Animals'.

But having dived off into talking about Marilyn Manson, I realise the point that you were making is what if someone ends up committing suicide through absorption in this music. Certainly the whole emo (emotional hardcore) genre was esteemed by suicidal teenagers. You could ask whether it just emerged in response to a growing number of teenagers who were depressed or did it in itself promote a culture of depression and self harm. Emo music has faded out of the mainstream now, although I recently saw My Chemical Romance's 'The Black Parade' in a chart of greatest albums of all times.

But, the other side of the argument about music is that music which is dark helps in the most darkest moments and perhaps we need the music which resonates with our worst feelings. So, I would say that while we probably need to be balanced in our listening it would be a mistake to try to avoid all the music which is dark. Perhaps such music prevents many suicides.

But, music and the arts we enjoy is not just about the personal it is about effects on others. So, we could also query whether it is dangerous in the sense of stirring up hatred? What effect does the music of mass entertainment have on people, on a conscious and subconscious level.Does certain music support and invite prejudice and violence?

Of course, it would go deeper than just the lyrics. I would wonder what certain music does on a vibrational level. Here, may be where we begin to see the complexity of music on the subliminal level. Music and the arts are about states of consciousness and it is this potential of the arts that I am really wondering about.

I rewrote what I wrote to you a little bit because I realised that I had been focusing too much on the role of the experience of the individual, whereas I am really wishing to address the wider effects of the arts. In particular, I am concerned about the states of consciousness entered into by the creator of an art form and how this impacts upon the audience, on a personal but also, on a collective basis.

I am asking about the level on which art can play in addressing social and political issues. I am speaking about the role of expression of feelings in art, fiction, music and other art forms. How far should it be seen as an aesthetic quest or one which is part of a cultural statement? How influential can art be in raising consciousness?

Also, I am asking about the responsibilities of the artist. To what extent is the artist just expressing personal feelings? Is there any danger if art, music or fiction is too 'dark', such as metal music? Does it matter what art we create? — Jack Cummins

I used to live in South Korea and AFKN was the American military broadcasting station. It was not unusual to see men in arms doing exercises, running through courses, drilling. And then they began playing rock music to the mock combat activities, and the effect was appalling as it put the whole matter within a context of carefree play, a nd rock music has a certain violent nature of its own, with its hard driven beat, so there was a kind of natural fusion of primitive impulses. What was lost was the gravity of the deadly violence they were preparing for. It all became so light and free and exciting, and I felt as I watched them that the spectacle was a kind of Hollywood production.

So what is objectionable about this? It turned what should be the most dreaded thing imaginable into a juvenile fiction of sorts. Of course, we see this kind of thing in movies and television all the time, and while I do get a kick out of these things as much as anyone else.....I do not approve (one of the great benefits of reading philosophy is that it can give rise to second guessing one's own impulses and gratifications).

But then, art has no natural affiliations in ideologies, in purposes and intentions. It can be used for propaganda (See Stalin era posters; see WWI posters encouraging enlistment, glorifying the cause. Siegfried Sassoon and Wifred Owen wrote their poetry opposing the war, and art was put to service on both sides), advertising, movies scores (what would a movie without a soundtrack? Note how music transforms the mundane the dramatic, the romantic, the comical).

Art is only as dangerous as its context.

How far should it be seen as an aesthetic quest or one which is part of a cultural statement? How influential can art be in raising consciousness? — Jack Cummins

I get really annoyed when people mistake art for something decorative or purely aesthetic, including when artists themselves do this. An artist is free to make whatever they want to, so they tend to make the best thing they can think of. The best thing they can think of is directly related to the height of their consciousness. In this way the product of art is information about the artists consciousness. Whether they be a two year old composing their first crayon drawing, or a Beethoven composing the 5th symphony, it is their consciousness that they are revealing in their work. A two year old reveals in their work what is uppermost in their mind - mummy, daddy, the house, dog, etc, whilst a Beethoven twists and turns and takes an orchestra to places only a Beethoven can. Art work is first and foremost information about the artists consciousness, in some form. This is the singular thing that art always must be, so art should be understood in terms of it. The form it may take is endlessly variable and open ended, but it can not escape being information about the artists thinking. Art work is symbolic of the thinking that created it.


So from this perspective the above question would read: can "the artists thinking in symbolized form" raise consciousness, or is "the artists thinking in symbolized form" a product of the culture the artist resides in, or is the " artists thinking in symbolized form" concerned mainly or entirely with decoration.

From this perspective some resolution to these questions is possible.

Artists can do anything, but IMO artists should either reflect life as it is, that is giving voice to an underappreciated opinion, or to display a facet of popular opinion that brings it's audience to a deeper appreciation of an opinion they already have, but didn't know they had. It is very rare that art actually changes opinions.

I was writing this thread more with a view to changing consciousness rather than changing opinions, although it is fairly possible that actual opinions could change. For example, some portrayal of an aspect of life could be portrayed in a film or a novel and it could bring a deeper understanding which changes opinions.

Opinions can be hard to change, even with the aid of philosophy and it is likely that the depiction of certain historical struggles can bring about depth and emotion to a portrayal of an aspect of social life.We could say that this could be done without need to involve an imaginary construct. For example, it is possible to write about life in the form of non fiction rather than just turning it into fiction.

We could also say that when philosophers write can involve some artistry too. I don't just mean sophisticated arguments but the deeper engagement with artistic creation, to bring forth the best philosophical writing.for This might enable people to engage more with the underlying issues and have an incredible world of ideas and knowledge. This may aid the way in which ideas are manifest in real life and bring important changes in the world.

I am asking about the level on which art can play in addressing social and political issues. I am speaking about the role of expression of feelings in art, fiction, music and other art forms. How far should it be seen as an aesthetic quest or one which is part of a cultural statement? How influential can art be in raising consciousness?

Also, I am asking about the responsibilities of the artist. To what extent is the artist just expressing personal feelings? Is there any danger if art, music or fiction is too 'dark', such as metal music? Does it matter what art we create? — Jack Cummins

I love political cartoons and in a very old book about poverty that I have, there pictures worth the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words".

The Spartans used music to coordinate the movements on the battlefield, and Athenians thought music was very important for aesthetic reasons and was an important part of education.

I liked the energy mental music better when I was young, and now I prefer mellow classical music. I like the rhythm of rap but often do not like the words! The hatred of some rape music is frightening. And the Beatles and The Mamas and the Papas, Alice's Restaraunt, I've Got a Hammer, I really think it was songs about war and peace that created peace when it was the thing to be Hippies. And oh my how much fun it was to dress Hippie and be creative. We sure could use some of that now.

That was said very well. Sometimes poetry is the best way to speak truth.

I started this thread with a view to thinking about creating art but it is hard not to indulge in discussions about music because it affects us and inspires us in every way. I probably spend as much time listening to music as I do reading.

I love the music of the 60s and so much of that was consciousness raising, including the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan and all the psychedelic bands. Music is so connected to what is going on in culture and it will be interesting to see what music emerges from the pandemic. I do find a lot of good new music, including a lot of psychedelic music because I read music magazines and used to go to record shops regularly before the pandemic.

I am worried that a lot of the record shops may never reopen and many have already shut down. Record shops and live music give music a dimension which I don't believe can be captured when people just rely on You tube and other sites at home.

You made an interesting Freudian slip. You said 'rape' music, presumably meaning rap. I think that it is possible to feel raped in the head by the sound of some music. Some rap can be very interesting politically, but a lot of it is very commercial.

But music is so central to the whole emotional and mental life. I am sure that it is one of the most important means for altering and raising consciousness on all levels.

I think that you make a very good point that,
'Art is only as dangerous as its context.' I am sure that sound can be misused. Someone once told me that it is even possible to kill purely by the use of sound.

But music has hypnotic potential and I am sure that this can be used with positive or negative intentions and effects.

Your post raises many important points and areas for questioning and examination about states of mind underlying the process of making art. I do believe that the consideration of this is essential and I definitely do believe that art can and should be so much more than decoration or commodities.

While I have done visual art always, in the last few years I have done more creative writing than art, so when I was creating this thread I was thinking about how to create the best fiction but I there are issues underlying all the arts, but with slight differences depending on the form of art. In some ways, it involves thinking of the way in which the aesthetics of the art will affect the viewer and about the dimensions into which the audience may be taken into. However, I do recognise the importance of the way in which art has a subjective element, but, also, as you suggest, it involves symbolism.

One of my biggest questions is about the whole question of dark fiction and fantasy. This is because I have to admit that in many ways this appeals to me, as does magical realism. Here, I would say that some of the authors I admire are Cormac McCarthy, Angela Carter and Stephen King. They involve mythic dimensions and do engage with the dark side of life. It would seem so shallow if they did not. I am influenced by the ideas of Jung and Joseph Campbell. I believe that the ideas of Joseph Campbell were used in the making of 'Star Wars'. Of course, this film was about the portrayal of a quest for popular audiences for film.

However, the underlying question is how dark should one go to create a good story,? I am not saying that in reference to making fiction with a view to what would be sellable, but with a view to what is most interesting for others to read. When I was going to creative writing workshops I did find that I was inclined to go in the direction of the dark and was a bit concerned that I should not do so, because I am not wishing to take others into negative states of mind. Ideally, I would like to write and make art which is transformative in a positive way.

I do believe that part of this process may be about getting into positive states of mind in the first place. At times, I have struggled with depression and dark states of mind, so I do try to work on this. I do some meditation. I would imagine that medication has some effects on the states of consciousness which can be useful for creating positive mental states for making art. I do use some visualisation CDs, including some shamanic ones.

Of course, shamanic journeying involves the journeying to lower worlds as well. I suppose this is where my questioning is based. The shamanic journeying is intentionally going to the lower worlds, but with a view to find healing potentials. So, I guess what I am wondering is whether we should be exploring such depths, or simply be exploring higher states of consciousness. This is on the personal level but also in the art we make.
I am sure that there are no simple answers but I do believe that it matters and has important implications.

We, all of us, are capable of thinking, acting, speaking but only a handful can do them beautifully and those so blessed are the artists. My idea of artistry at its best is that of an artist who can kill another person in such a way that the person being killed is forced, by the sheer beauty of the way the execution is carried out, to be the biggest fan of the murderous artist. Macabre, yes, but you get the picture. A consummate artist must be able to take the ugliest thing in the universe, work faer magic, and transform it into something beautiful. A truly great artist could take Satan and turn him into Yahweh. I await with eager anticipation for such an artist to be born and take us where no man has gone before. :smile:

That is a fascinating idea for an art or writing project: taking the idea of Satan and turning him into Jahweh. We can all play around with that idea.

The most relevant art that I can think of is 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' by William Blake. Also, I can vaguely remember reading in one of Blake's works, that, 'Milton wrote in fetters because he was part of the devil's party unknowingly.' No wonder that I worry about expressing my dark side, even though I am not religious in a conventional sense, and Blake wasn't a mainstream thinker himself

I get what you are trying to accomplish, I am more practically minded, thus I commonly take the issue of consciousness the next step or two, to the practical implications of such a change. That's more me than you.

As you suggest that you are more able to take consciousness to the next stage or two on a practical level than I am, I am fascinated to know more. Obviously, I don't know if it is something which you are willing to share about it on this site.

An artist, a real one, must be able to infuse objects, from highfalutin ideas to lowly flush toilets, with beauty. It ain't easy; I'm not an artist but had aspirations of becoming one in my own small way but it didn't work out for me. That's that.

What bothers me is one particular aspect on the subject of aesthetics. Taking calligraphy as an example, smooth sinuous curves are added onto basic forms and that suggests, perhaps only to an untrained eye, that beauty has something do with complexity and being that requires more time and energy, right? In a sense we burn more calories when we want to be aesthetic.

On the other hand, there's another kind of beauty, mostly seen in math and the sciences especially physics. Mathematical beauty is all about simplicity, finding the shortest, most compact equation is the holy grail of math and the sciences. This kind of beauty is about austeurness - conserving instead of expending calories

Ugliness falls between these two kinds of beauties. Reminds me of dumbbells. I think I'll call this view of beauty as the Dumbbell theory of beauty.

I have known a couple of people who made art based on toilets and urinals. There may not be a strict division between the sacred and the profane. The quest may be to discover the beauty within madness.

I am asking about the level on which art can play in addressing social and political issues. I am speaking about the role of expression of feelings in art, fiction, music and other art forms. — Jack Cummins

While maybe a bit of a tangent to the OP’s intent, I’ve been itching to say this, so I will.

Art is, and has always been, a major social force. Cave paintings weren’t just for kicks; they played a massive role in forming the institutionalized, though tribal, cultures of the past, often via initiations and rights of passage for folks that held an upper hand in how society, and its concepts of worth and of reality, were formed. Which played a significant role in politics with an upper “P” via politics with a lower “p”. And art still shapes most of our attributes as a society in total. Today, however, the vast majority of artists are the servants of corporations. Billboards are art, as one example among many. Corporations taking over the music industry and the public airways as another. To stick with advertisements, they are not made by CEOs but by the artists companies employ. An advertisement is worthless unless it captivates via some form of aesthetic, has some form of emotive appeal. And this is the artist’s job to produce. It’s just that, nowadays, the vast majority of art that shapes our minds - our perspectives and thoughts regarding values and so forth - is not done by artists pursuing the expression of truths - be these personal, universal or anything in-between. For most of these artistic productions, there’s little if anything inherently valuable to the artist in the artwork created. It’s value is mostly, if not fully, instrumental: typically, a tool for hording as much cash as one can. For the often poorly paid artist, yes, but also for the CEOs and fellows that largely determine what the vast majority of society’s artists can and cannot do. This if the artists care about sustaining themselves, if not also their loved ones. And by being a major influence upon society’s collective values, this same commercial art influences what people tend to chose in respect to elected officials and their attributes, it influences people’s judgments of what is just and unjust in respect to legal decisions, and so forth. In short, it influences politics with a small “p” and, consequently - though very much indirectly - our politics with a large “P”.

So, in my view, yes, art is a major force in forming society at large.

ps. Especially as regards today’s world, I’m obviously not talking about high art - which, imv, is today more often than not socially impotent. But the art we're exposed to on a daily basis via advertisements and the like is art all the same.

pps. Yes, artists of all stripes have been known to be rewarded for their art with money for some time now. Still, the corporatization of today’s vast majority of art stands on its own relative to humanity’s history.

Also, I am asking about the responsibilities of the artist. To what extent is the artist just expressing personal feelings? Is there any danger if art, music or fiction is too 'dark', such as metal music? Does it matter what art we create? — Jack Cummins

Artists love to deny any and all responsibility. Art is a kind of caveat emptor affair, where all the responsibility lies on the audience.

I have known a couple of people who made art based on toilets and urinals. There may not be a strict division between the sacred and the profane. The quest may be to discover the beauty within madness. — Jack Cummins

I think the other poster is talking about installing a music player into the toilet room, so that when the toilet is flushed, music plays.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/524645/6000-toilet-warms-your-seat-plays-music-and-flushes-command

I love the music of the 60s and so much of that was consciousness raising, including the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan and all the psychedelic bands. — Jack Cummins

"Consciousness raising"??!
The music that you mention is decadent and lowers one's consciousness.

I have known a couple of people who made art based on toilets and urinals. There may not be a strict division between the sacred and the profane. The quest may be to discover the beauty within madness — Jack Cummins

Off the top of my head all I can say is that the key ideas in art are to,

1. [Capture] the beauty of nature (paint, sculpt scenic landscapes, handsome men, gorgeous women, etc.)

2. Beautification of nature (take what's aesthetically deficient and make it beautiful e.g. calligraphy, poetry, cosmetics)

How does the sacred and the profane fit into such a framework of art? The sacred, in and of itself, is beautiful to behold; all that the artist needs to do is copy it onto a medium. As for the profane, it needs work, the artist must tap into his ingenuity to find a way to make what's essentially revolting into something beautiful.

I am puzzled about how you see the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan and psychedelia as lowering consciousness. What do you mean and what music do you believe raises it ?

I am puzzled about how you see the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan and psychedelia as lowering consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Because that music is either bestial naivete, or cynicism that belongs to the theatre of the absurd; neither is conducive to living a productive life, thus, it lowers consciousness.

what music do you believe raises it ?

Whatever music there might be that is conducive to living a productive life.
The kind of music one could listen to, for example, before going in for a job interview or when being told that one has terminal cancer, and that music would make one (more) able to do well in that interview or to live a meaningful life despite the terminal cancer.
AFAIK, there is no music that does that.

I am not sure what you would consider to be 'the productive life.' My own would be one of making art and writing. If you consider the sixties music as the theatre of the absurd what do you make of new wave, indie, hip hop etc?

You speak of the importance of music that could be helpful before going to a job interview or being diagnosed with terminal cancer. These are vastly different and I have been in the situation of going for interviews. I remember playing an album by the band Weezer before one and it helped, but music is subjective.

The question of what music one would play if one was terminally I'll is interesting. I am sure it is subjective as well. You speak of no music for living a 'meaningful life despite terminal cancer'. I think it would be mistaken to project all expected on to music. I think if I was told that I was terminally ill I might find the music of U2 to be helpful, such as The Joshua Tree. The biggest challenge would be not to retreat to bed but to continue an active life. But I am sure different people would have different challenges and music might not be the biggest concern.

But the main thought which I am having while writing this is that while I love to listen to music that I don't just want to indulge in this too much as a passive observer, as a victim of consumerism. I don't make music but I want to be creating art of my own.