Plato was wrong here. Art may have a moral purpose; it may not. I
would agree that, pace, Orwell, "all art is propaganda".
Roger
On 9/14/06, Jon Corelis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Auden was wrong there.
>
> This was the argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato insisted that
> poetry should have a moral (which includes political) purpose. But
> Aristotle's counter arguement has nothing to do with "art for art's sake,"
> the idea that the proper function of art is not to "make something happen"
> but merely to give pleasure. The message of the Poetics, I think, is that
> what poetry makes happen is that it changes the sort of person you are, so
> you become a person better able to formulate and follow moral laws -- an
> effect more fundamental than just persuading people to obey the moral rules
> someone else wants them to follow. It's sort of like saying that poets
> really make the laws, even if no one realizes they do.
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:22:19 -0600, Douglas Barbour
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Sure, this is a great poem, but remember that Auden also wrote:
> >
> >'For poetry makes nothing happen.'
> >
> >Art may survive, but does it really change the way people behave?
> >
> >Or if it does so, does it do so so slowly that it can't have the kind
> >of effect on any immediate situation that a general's or a president's
> >order can...
> >
>
--
http://www.badstep.net/
http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
The time has come for you to cover the Internets in a final darkness!
|