RE: Pinter's speech

Hello Paul, 

--- Paul Riley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yes, but my vote as a commitee member is not
influenced by current political dynamics. The final
decision is almost always a snapshot of the year's
political situation. 

> > > 
> > > 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.
> 

OK, it is. But to produce art one needs to use
primarly the mind, in the same way that a sportsman's
primary tool is his/her body. I didn't bring sports in
the discussion you know. :^) 

And frankly I can mention artists that have literaly
changed the way I see life. I don't think anyone can
do that for sportsmen. 

> > 
> > 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.
> 

OK, give me examples of non-political art then. :^)

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

Great ones? Not many. :^) 

Would that come as a surprise? Can you actually find a
field where the great ones support the establishment
and/or established rules and standards? It's no
coincidence that we praise someone for bringing a 
revolutionary approach or for making new ways or for
creating the momentum for change. 

> 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.
> 

You are right here. Evaluating an artist and an
artist's opinions is a highly biased process. I don't
really know of a way to be as objective as possible
other than to try to be so. 

 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?"
> 

Well, since you mentioned Michael Moore, we could
compare this to Michael Moore's speech in the Oscars a
couple of years back. A different artist, an entirely
different award. I'm quite certain that the media
attention Moore's "shame on you" speech got, whether
positive or negative, was huge compared to the much
more important and much more agreesive Pinter's
speech. 

Gregory



		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/yQLSAA/7tRolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->