Bflag's Pleasures of Criticism

Pathetic Lennon

pelegrino said:

do you think Lennon's "Imagine" is propaganda?

Click to expand...

pelegrino, choose much better examples. Lennon's Imagine is pathetic, is banal. Word think and word Lennon should not share the same breath.

I recently read several of JOHN LENNON LYRICS--an exercise in nothing.

bogusagain said:

Precisely! All art is political, even the art that abstains from the political. To have no political point to make, is political as it accepts the status quo or is indifferent to change or accepting of change.

It's like pointless art, it has a point, even if the point is to be pointless. The old pointless paradox. The point is, there is no point. The politics is, there is no politics.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Bogusagain, for your brilliant clarification.
One cannot do any better than that, but still people will believe what they wish to believe despite all logic endowed once in their heads by nature,it seems that political propaganda in every human affair has taken over in them.

Senna Jawa said:

Originally Posted by pelegrino:

Whether you choose to reply to this post or not, and the way you do it or not, the words you choose or you don't, you adopt a political stance.​

Pelegrino and bogusagain, you can win the war about WORD political. (That's what propaganda from every side likes you to believe). So, you won. Now what? Nothing! It's cheap.

In a meta-sense, the view that everything is political is nonsensical (makes no sense, it does not buy you anything), even if in the direct sense you can have your way (while others can have it their way).

Click to expand...

Who said that words should be expensive? Of course it's cheap, plus effortless!
I don't understand very well "meta" terms. What is a "meta" sense? To me it is "past its sense and been something completely different", (from the Greek definition of the word "meta" that is). Please don’t quote from any of my poems or from metaphysics in general, that I understand.
I also understand and agree with you that in the direct sense I can have it my way while others can have it in theirs too. Jolly good!

Senna Jawa said:

Some people claim, that everything is political; but actually--they do not claim, they define the word political.

The same or other people define word altruistic or (il)logically claim that nothing is altruistic. They claim that whatever you choose to do brings you satisfaction, pleasure, is egoistic. Thus everything according to them, i.e. to their definition, is egoistic; and nothing is altruistic.

You can win this war about words but it's meaningless, it's cheap.

In both cases: political or altruistic/egoistic, the claims about everything or nothing are a waste of otherwise meaningful words.

Click to expand...

Of course, Seena, first politics is defined and then within that definition everything is defined as political. It's like the "Matrix", there is no way out of it.
It's not a waste of meaningful words, just correct use of them, although metaphysical believers won't have it.

Senna Jawa said:

pelegrino, choose much better examples. Lennon's Imagine is pathetic, is banal. Word think and word Lennon should not share the same breath.

I recently read several of JOHN LENNON LYRICS--an exercise in nothing.

Click to expand...

You may not like its simplicity and strait forwardness but still to me it is a great political song making some great political statements which people all over the world could and still can relate to. These combined with a very well constructed melody, rhythm and harmony which help very much to pass the message over, constitute a great song to me, that is: Great art for the masses, that some of the far superior(?)art composers lack the ability to do.
Anyway, that's my view, I leave to other Lennon lovers (there's millions or billions out there) to reply to your points. As for giving better examples, I have already pointed out towards the Brecht-Eisler direction, but if you find that too "Germanic" still Dylan's and Seeger's art is alive and kicking.
Thanks for the link, I could do with something like that!

pelegrino said:

Who said that words should be expensive? Of course it's cheap, plus effortless!
Please don’t quote from any of my poems

Click to expand...

?? I am sorry if I had quoted in this thread any of your poems when I thought you were just making one of the straight statements on the meaning of word politics. (If this is a misunderstanding then let's forget it).

pelegrino said:

You still miss a few points out of what is been discussed (and I don't mean only in respect to your reply to me but to others also), or perhaps you cannot be bothered any further, which is fine with me.
Still, all political art is not necessarily propaganda,do you think Lennon's "Imagine" is propaganda? To me it is propagating a better world, so I suppose it is, but as 1201 said, all great art may be political, but still it is art, full stop.
(Listen to some Brecht-Eisler songs if you think Dylan and Seeger are not relevant anymore, see what you make out of them).
Plus, all propaganda is not necessarily bad, artless or irrelevant. It depends on whether it is propagating the truth or lies, and even if lies as in the "Shakespeare Tudor ass sucking" it still may be great art .
Anyhow, I refer you to Aristotle's proposition above.
Whatever we say (either artistically or otherwise), if we are serious about it, it is a political statement.
Whether you choose to reply to this post or not, and the way you do it or not, the words you choose or you don't, you adopt a political stance.
And so was Seikilos in adopting his burial song.

Click to expand...

All political expression is by definition 'propaganda'. Propaganda at its most basic just means ideas used to promote a specific political viewpoint. So I assume you guys are saying that all art is propaganda and expresses a political viewpoint always and at all times.

There's nothing of politics in Dylan Thomas' Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night or Elizabeth Barrett's How Do I Love Thee? And these two poems are very serious and express part of a worldview, they just say nothing of what it means to be engaged in ordering a society.

As far as Aristotle is concerned I don't get what you're getting at. He specifically said his political science was studying what the legislators within the city-state were up to, and that it was a study of practical knowledge within the maintenance of laws, while the craftsmen, builders, artists were involved in pursuit of productive knowledge -- the crafting of things such as buildings and sculpture and poems.

bflagsst said:

All political expression is by definition 'propaganda'.

Click to expand...

What if what is being said is true?

You might say "true to who?"

But there are factual truths, such as now in the UK. The Conservative government has cut taxes for the rich, while they have increased taxes for the poor.

Propaganda? No!

This is how other poets have thought about effectiveness and relevance of political art:

by Bertolt Brecht

[size=+1]ON THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE[/size]

The critical attitude
strikes many people as unfruitful,
that is because they find the state
impervious to their criticism,
but what in this case is an unfruitful attitude
is merely a feeble attitude. Give criticism arms
and states can be demolished by it.

Canalizing a river
grafting a fruit tree
educating a person
transforming a state
these are instances of fruitful criticism
and at the same time
instances of art.

(from Later Svendborg Poems and Satires / 1936-1938)

pensivepoet said:

Hey 12, and correct me if i'm wrong, but if i remember correctly, you mentioned you didn't care for dylan's music or writing. Could you expound?
I'm not being snarky. For a long time i ignored the bob, but i've come to appreciated much of his stuff. Just curious what your deeper thoughts on dylan are.

Click to expand...

i was away...
in a manger
are we talking about thee BOB
Mr. D was/is a bit of a poseur, good pill poppin songwriter when he wasn't tryin to say something and really needed way back when...
He did expand the boundaries of popular music, but expounding on the meanings about as useful as expounding on the meanings of Pound...
But Pound was a poet, Dylan a songwriter. There is a difference.

A shame bflagsst wrapped up his philosophy thread.