Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 17, No. 133.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu
[1] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk> (51)
Subject: the hammer of art
[2] From: rddescha <rddescha@dal.ca> (5)
Subject: RE: 17.131 quotation from Brecht -- or Marx?
[3] From: rddescha <rddescha@dal.ca> (5)
Subject: RE: 17.131 quotation from Brecht -- or Marx?
[4] From: Norman Hinton <hinton@springnet1.com> (7)
Subject: Re: 17.131 quotation from Brecht -- or Marx?
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:21:44 +0100
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
Subject: the hammer of art
With regards to the authorship of "Art is not a mirror held up to reality
but a hammer with which to shape it", as requested again in Humanist
17.131, I've turned up the following from Leon Trotsky, "Futurism", in
Literature and Revolution (1924; rpt. New
York, 1957), online at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1924/lit_revo/. (I have
corrected a few typos but not checked this against a hardcopy edition.)
Note that Trotsky himself cites it as something like a proverb, though in
this translation the words are not quite what was asked for.
>The error of the "Left", at least of some of its theorists, appears to us
>in its most generalized form, when they make an ultimatum for the fusion
>of art with life. It is not to be argued that the separation of art from
>other aspects of social life was the result of the class structure of
>society, that the self-sufficient character of art is merely the reverse
>side of the fact that art became the property of the privileged classes,
>and that the evolution of art in the future will follow the path of a
>growing fusion with life, that is, with production, with popular holidays
>and with the collective group life. It is good that the "Left" understands
>this and explains it. But it is not good when they present a short time
>ultimatum on the basis of the present day art, when they say: leave your
>"lathe" and fuse with life. In other words, the poets, the painters, the
>sculptors, the actors must cease to reflect, to depict, to write poems, to
>paint pictures, to carve sculptures, to speak before the footlights, but
>they must carry their art directly into life. But how, and where, and
>through what gates? Of course, one may hail every attempt to carry as much
>rhythm and sound and color as is possible into popular holidays and
>meetings and processions. But one must have a little historic vision, at
>least, to understand that between our present day economic and cultural
>poverty and the time of the fusion of art with life, that is, between the
>time when life will reach such proportions that it will be entirely formed
>by art, more than one generation will have come and gone. Whether for good
>or for bad, the "lathelike" art will remain for many years more, and will
>be the instrument of the artistic and social development of the masses and
>their sthetic enjoyment, and this is true not only of the art of
>painting, but of lyrics, novels, comedies, tragedies, sculpture and
>symphony. To reject art as a means of picturing and imaging knowledge
>because of one's opposition to the contemplative and impressionistic
>bourgeois art of the last few decades, is to strike from the hands of the
>class which is building a new society its most important weapon. Art, it
>is said, is not a mirror, but a hammer: it does not reflect, it shapes.
>But at present even the handling of a hammer is taught with the help of a
>mirror, a sensitive film which records all the movements. Photography and
>motion-picture photography, owing to their passive accuracy of depiction,
>are becoming important educational instruments in the field of labor. If
>one cannot get along without a mirror, even in shaving oneself, how can
>one reconstruct oneself or one's life, without seeing oneself in the
>"mirror" of literature? Of course no one speaks about an exact mirror. No
>one even thinks of asking the new literature to have a mirror-like
>impassivity. The deeper literature is, and the more it is imbued with the
>desire to shape life, the more significantly and dynamically it will be
>able to "picture" life.
Yours,
WM
Dr Willard McCarty | Senior Lecturer | Centre for Computing in the
Humanities | King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS || +44 (0)20
7848-2784 fax: -2980 || willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:23:26 +0100
From: rddescha <rddescha@dal.ca>
Subject: RE: 17.131 quotation from Brecht -- or Marx?
Kelly,
The _Times Book of Quotations_ has this quotation as written by Vladimir
Mayakovsky in _The Guardian_, 1974. (HarperCollins, 2000, p. 70)
Ryan. . .
Ryan Deschamps
MLIS/MPA Candidate -- Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:24:26 +0100
From: rddescha <rddescha@dal.ca>
Subject: RE: 17.131 quotation from Brecht -- or Marx?
Noticed the unclear citation. The _Times Book of Quotations is published by
HarperCollins, 2000, not _The Guardian_.
Ryan. . .
________________
Ryan Deschamps
MLIS/MPA Candidate -- Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University
--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:25:02 +0100
From: Norman Hinton <hinton@springnet1.com>
Subject: Re: 17.131 quotation from Brecht -- or Marx?
Here's another possibility:
Art is not a mirror to reflect the world, but a hammer with which to
shape it.
~ Vladimir Mayakovsky (1893 - 1930), "The Guardian"
Dr Willard McCarty | Senior Lecturer | Centre for Computing in the
Humanities | King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS || +44 (0)20
7848-2784 fax: -2980 || willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 05:45:45 EDT