RE: Pinter's speech

> > In what way do you consider the Nobel Prize in
> > Literature to be a
> > "technical" choice?
> 
> I compared it to the Peace one. It's technical
> compared to that. 
> 
> Apart from Churchill, I don't recall any other author
> who was awarded the Literature Prize purely for
> political reasons. There are some choices that I find
> bizarre (like J.M.Coetzee, whose books I've always
> found unreasonably violent) but I'm no critic.
> However, every single book, play or poem I've come
> across that was written by a nobel prize winner is of
> high standards, whether agreeable to my personal taste
> or not. 

Have to be honest, I'd consider the Hugo awards more important to my choice
of books to read than I would the Nobel Prize in Literature.  I'm still not
seeing how you consider this prize more technical than the Nobel Prize in
Peace.  Art is as much a matter for opinion as politics.

> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature
> > 
> > -- The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded annually
> > to an author from any country who has, in the words of
> > Alfred Nobel, produced "the most outstanding work of an
> > idealistic tendency". --
> > 
> > And even if we accept that it is a technical choice,
> > can we honestly say that any kind of artist is to be
> > valued for his political opinions purely based on the
> > quality of his art?  Why not sportsmen then?
> > 
> 
> Ehm, perhaps because artists use their minds? 

That's a gross generalisation, as is the implication that sportsmen don't.

> Should we talk about art in general? If there's one
> thing about the western civilization that has always
> been political, that's its art. Renaissance painters
> challenged the absolute rule of the Pappal Church by
> "breaking" the forms and hierarchy of painting,
> theatrical plays challenged prolonged wars like the
> Peloponnesean,  intelligent satire of contemporary
> morals can be  found in the works of people like
> Wilde, the expression of the romantic era is in the
> works of Byron (also highly political in his approach
> to Meternich's rulings), new forms and styles of
> making movies that can escape Soviet censorship were
> developed (Eisenstein), camera tricks that challenge
> the viewer's standards (Orson Welles), songs like
> "Give peace a chance". The list of artists that chose
> to challenge contemporary values is huge, whether that
> be a minor or major challenge, whether in the right
> direction or not. The same applies for famous
> compromises, like Kazan's works or Beethoven's Heroic
> symphony. A good example: Shakespeare pictured Richard
> the III as a cripple and the darker of villains; we
> all have his play in mind but most historians agree
> that probably he did that mostly because the Tudor
> propagandists wanted to justify Henry VII's own
> usurpation of the throne. 
> 
> Art is definetely political in its core. We do agree
> on that, don't we? 

No, not at all.  Art may or may not be political at it's core, depending on
the artist.  You have picked examples here that mostly are, and you're right
that the list is huge.  Likewise the list of artists with technical skills
and no political aspirations whatsoever is huge.  There is no correlation,
as far as I can see.

And here's an interesting question for you... How many artists can you name
of a political bent who generally supported the establishment?

It strikes me that most political art is anti-establishment and we only take
it as serious political statement when we too are against that
establishment.

> Ehm, I've only seen one of his plays and I would not
> consider his work equivalent to Moore's films. He's
> nowhere as "enrolled" to the "cause" and the quality
> of work is on an entirely different level. 

That is probably a fair comment (I only really know of him for his political
campaigning and having read some of his poetry), but does not really address
my point.  Pinter is clearly against the establishment, particularly the US
establishment, and is quite happy to jump on any bandwagon that fits with
the Pinter "brand" for want of a better word.  Moore does the same thing,
albeit in a less talented and more tabloid-like way.

> > He's supported Saddam against the US, the Taliban
> > against the US, Milosovic against the US, Castro against
> > the US.  Are you seeing a common theme here?
> > 
> 
> I tend to disagree here. As far as I know he's spoken
> against the US policies over the last 5-6 decades.
> That would put him against the invasion of Iraq for
> example, but why is that the same as supporting
> Saddam? And I'm quite certain he has not taken any 
> position favorable to the Taliban regime. Do you have
> a specific speech you refer to? 

I'll concede the point that anti-invasion is not necessarily pro-Saddam.
And taking that further, he has probably never said anything pro-Taliban,
though he has certainly stood out against the invasion of Afghanistan.  Not
having the energy to search for specific speeches, I'll refer again to
Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Pinter

Pinter opposed the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
He famously called President of the United States, George W. Bush a mass
murderer and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair a 'deluded
idiot'. He frequently writes political letters to British newspapers. He has
likened the Bush administration to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, saying the
U.S. was charging towards world domination while the American public and the
United Kingdom's "mass-murdering" prime minister sat back and watched.

...

Pinter is also an active delegate of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, an
organization that defends Cuba, is supportive of the government of Fidel
Castro, and campaigns against the U.S. embargo on the country. He is a
member of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milošević, an
organization that appeals for the freedom of Slobodan Milošević.

> > I don't necessarily disagree with his sentiment in
> > this particular case, but Pinter saying it out loud
> > has done nothing to swing my opinion either way.
> 
> Fair enough, my question was whether an important
> public figure (and I'm sure we all agree that a nobel
> prize winner is one such) captures media attention if
> what he says is, in fact, as blunt as the speech
> Pinter's delivered on the ceremony. 

And the answer clearly is no, and my point is "why would it?"

P



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/7tRolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->