You know you are getting old when:

[tonyb]

"Last night the wife said, 'Poor boy, when you're dead you won't take nothing with you but your soul.'"
John Lennon - "The Ballad of John and Yoko"

Not only can't I take it with me, but my wife and I never had children so I/we don't really have anyone to leave it to. Besides, I'm fairly pragmatic when it comes to the subject of death; more specifically my own. The two most common beliefs are, a) that we simply die and our existence ends, and b) that there is some form of afterlife and that what we call a "soul" leaves the body when it dies and returns to that afterlife. Either way, once this body dies I'll have no use for any of this Earthly stuff and certainly won't care about it or what happens to it. But as long as I'm here, it would sure be nice to have enough of that evil green stuff stashed away so that I wouldn't have to concern myself with whether or not I have enough of it to live out my remaining days in even a modest amount of comfort.

I've long held that many of our concepts of "ownership," particularly ownership of land and "permanent" structures thereon, carry more than a whiff of mortality denial.

 

[Fading Fast]

Having cleared out my grandmother's apartment and father's things after their deaths, I have no - none, not one - illusion that the property you own is anything other than something you "rent" during your time on earth.

Neither of them had a lot of money or a lot of things, but like most of us who are fortunate to have a little extra money beyond our need for food, shelter and clothing (for my grandmother, this was only true in her old age and, for my father, in middle age) they had a few things that were important to them even though they were not very expensive or valuable (a lot of things cost money to buy and own, but have nearly no value if you go to sell them).

What was sad for almost all of that stuff, as, again, it wasn't valuable stuff, was throwing most of it away as we had no use for it and no place to store it (that costs money after a point). I doubt - knowing them pretty well - that either of them saw their possessions as anything more than some "stuff" that could bring them a little enjoyment / they didn't imbue those things with any existential meaning.

That said, both did believe in and respect property rights - their's and others (that was drilled into my head). Both of them knew - having lost everything in the Depression - that money and possessions, even during your time on earth, give you, at best, only a modest amount of security. But both also believe that was all you could do to build some security and it was amply better than depending on some great "system of charity" or "shared property" to turn your fate over to.

 

[tonyb]

Sometimes having things "drilled into [one's] head" leaves little opportunity for any contrary ideas to make their way in. It becomes all but indistinguishable from religious zealotry.

FWIW, I -- like most people, I presume -- had much nonsense drilled into my head as well. In my case, the driller was a not particularly bright fellow who believed wisdom was to be found in mindless platitudes. I'm still unlearning, lo these many years on, all those worthless life lessons he imparted on my impressionable young self.

 

[Fading Fast]

It's always good to remember that *all* art is propaganda in one form or another, and this is especially true of any and all forms of mass art and mass media. It's either used to sell you an idea or a mindset -- or distract you from something you aren't supposed to notice -- or sometimes both. Nothing that has ever aired on television has ever been there just to entertain you, educate you, or inform you. There is always, *always* an ulterior motive. Occasionally it's benign, but more often it is not, and you can usually discover the ultimate purpose of what you're watching by simply following the money.

I've been thinking about this post since I read it and am not sure what the "*" around the word "all" and "always" are for - are they to indicate that there are occasional exceptions?

I'm not trying to be tricky or challenging - I'll be open when I do that - but am just trying to fully understand your post.

My one "challenge," and I'm not sure that it is that, is that I'm not sure I agree with the word "propaganda" but definitely would say that most art has an opinion, a point of view or a deeper meaning that isn't always obvious on the surface or that can take time to absorb.

To me, in its modern usage, "propaganda" has a negative connotations, but that could be my view and not a generally accepted one. So while I think art has meanings and viewpoints on several levels - and they intend to promote those views - I don't think I'd call that propaganda. So, I guess that's my second question to you - what do you mean by propaganda / do you mean it with a negative connotation?

 

[2jakes]

^^^^^^
The moment "all" is used to make an opinion.... is like a road with many
paths.
Everyone chooses the one they feel best to take.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Propaganda isn't necessarily a term with either a positive or negative connotation -- it didn't acquire a negative meaning until the world wars, and that use was itself propaganda: if "you" say it, it's propaganda, if "we" say it it's The Truth (TM).

The word itself, all propaganda aside, simply means "content" meant to promote a point of view. Medieval Christian art was not simply pictures of saints -- it was propaganda meant to promote the beliefs of the church to the illiterate. The colossi of the ancient worlds were not simply statues of historic figures -- they were propaganda meant to promote the religion and the political structure of their states. A Civil War statue in a park is not simply a depiction of a man on a horse -- it's propaganda meant to promote a certain view of that particular conflict. Giant heads carved into the side of Mount Rushmore are propaganda meant to convey a certain image of the United States, every bit as much as a pointing sculpture of Lenin was meant to convey a certain image in the USSR. The "charging bull" on Wall Street is every bit as much propaganda as is the "Fearless Girl."

You can even look at "fine art" that way. Much of it was created on commission by the aristocracy in order to promote a certain view of itself and its place in society. And certainly forces opposing the prevailing order of their times have used art the same way -- to promote its cause and its beliefs. And popular art is loaded with examples of this -- popular culture heroes and figures have been used to promote everything from colonialism to anarchy. "Saturday Evening Post" art was propaganda, WPA murals were propaganda, and Superman comic books were propaganda. No matter what the art, there's always something else going on that isn't on the surface.

The idea of "art = propaganda" isn't really a new one -- you can find it expressed in the works of a lot of twentieth-century social critics, from Orwell to W. E. B. DuBois. And in each case, I think the evidence shows them to be right.

 

[Fading Fast]

Propaganda isn't necessarily a term with either a positive or negative connotation -- it didn't acquire a negative meaning until the world wars, and that use was itself propaganda: if "you" say it, it's propaganda, if "we" say it it's The Truth (TM).

The word itself, all propaganda aside, simply means "content" meant to promote a point of view. Medieval Christian art was not simply pictures of saints -- it was propaganda meant to promote the beliefs of the church to the illiterate. The colossi of the ancient worlds were not simply statues of historic figures -- they were propaganda meant to promote the religion and the political structure of their states. A Civil War statue in a park is not simply a depiction of a man on a horse -- it's propaganda meant to promote a certain view of that particular conflict. Giant heads carved into the side of Mount Rushmore are propaganda meant to convey a certain image of the United States, every bit as much as a pointing sculpture of Lenin was meant to convey a certain image in the USSR. The "charging bull" on Wall Street is every bit as much propaganda as is the "Fearless Girl."

You can even look at "fine art" that way. Much of it was created on commission by the aristocracy in order to promote a certain view of itself and its place in society. And certainly forces opposing the prevailing order of their times have used art the same way -- to promote its cause and its beliefs. And popular art is loaded with examples of this -- popular culture heroes and figures have been used to promote everything from colonialism to anarchy. "Saturday Evening Post" art was propaganda, WPA murals were propaganda, and Superman comic books were propaganda. No matter what the art, there's always something else going on that isn't on the surface.

The idea of "art = propaganda" isn't really a new one -- you can find it expressed in the works of a lot of twentieth-century social critics, from Orwell to W. E. B. DuBois. And in each case, I think the evidence shows them to be right.

Thank you, I was hung up on the negative connotation angle.

 

[2jakes]

Gee whiz...I learned something today.
I guess when I painted a canvas oil of my grandmother’s house for
my mother to enjoy and other paintings I see hanging in homes
because I enjoy doing it and love to share it with others that I care
about very much, must be some form of propanganda.

 

[GHT]

The idea of "art = propaganda" isn't really a new one -- you can find it expressed in the works of a lot of twentieth-century social critics, from Orwell to W. E. B. DuBois. And in each case, I think the evidence shows them to be right.

Would you say that rhetoric and propaganda are two sides of the same coin?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Rhetoric's certainly an art!

I really don't think it's possible to create any type of art that doesn't have a point of view. Everything from socialist realiism to abstract expressionism to pastoral nostalgia is a point of view. And the creation of art that expresses a point of view is the very essence of propaganda. Everything from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to a paint-by-number depiction of Milton Berle's face is, in its own way, propaganda.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The purpose of all art is to promote an emotional response to the perspective offered by the creator of the art. Like I said.

 

[tonyb]

Rhetoric's certainly an art!

I really don't think it's possible to create any type of art that doesn't have a point of view. Everything from socialist realiism to abstract expressionism to pastoral nostalgia is a point of view. And the creation of art that expresses a point of view is the very essence of propaganda. Everything from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to a paint-by-number depiction of Milton Berle's face is, in its own way, propaganda.

After all, the painter of pastoral scenes chooses which scenes to depict, and how to depict them. If that ain't a point of view, I'm Miss America.

There is no such thing as an unbiased view. About the best we can hope for from ourselves and our fellows is to be aware of those biases and, in that awareness, to deal fairly.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The one thing I agree with that Henry Ford said is his observation "History is bunk."

History is written by historians, and historians are the number one purveyors of propaganda. They may see themselves as purveyors of "unbiased fact," but a historian has never lived who actually did that -- not in ancient Egyptian times, and not in our own present day. History is not a "hard science" any more than art is.

 

[Haversack]

The common thought today seems to be that anything labeled propaganda is either misinformation or disinformation. 'They' manufacture propaganda. 'We' provide factual information. The term has acquired its negative connotation through its use in the 20th C. in the arenas of war and ideology, and in the much-written-about idea that the arts must serve the interest of the state. At its base however, propaganda is simply material created to elicit a particular emotional response to a particular subject. It makes you feel a certain way about a certain topic. That topic could be a car, a soft drink, a person, a holiday, or a political/economic value. Its entertainment or informative value is the gilding of the pill.

 

[Zombie_61]

Obviously, we are merely caretakers of our prized possesions. I've mentioned before about leaving messages on my vehicles for those in the future who will claim them. But in the back of my mind, thoughts of someone pitching a sled into the fire and the whisper of "Rosebud"..... comes to mind.

Surely you're aware of the old proverb, "One man's junk is another man's treasure." What most people never seem to learn is that it works the other way around as well.

The one thing I agree with that Henry Ford said is his observation "History is bunk."

History is written by historians, and historians are the number one purveyors of propaganda. They may see themselves as purveyors of "unbiased fact," but a historian has never lived who actually did that -- not in ancient Egyptian times, and not in our own present day. History is not a "hard science" any more than art is.

This is one of the reasons I enjoy newer books and documentaries that make an attempt to set the record straight by disputing "historical fact" (boy, there's a misnomer if ever there was one) with newly discovered facts (which, of course, may be just as dubious). Granted, much of it is subject to interpretation and could be equally as inaccurate as the "official" story, especially when examined purely from a modern perspective and ignoring the perspectives/mores of the relevant eras. But I believe "the truth" is in there somewhere, and the search for it is often as interesting as the results. It does make me question everything I was taught during 12 years of schooling though.

 

[2jakes]

Surely you're aware of the old proverb, "One man's junk is another man's treasure." What most people never seem to learn is that it works the other way around as well.

I love to collect junk bikes and turn them to their former glory. I do it for my pleasure.
What most people think about this is irrelevant to me.

As far as facts are concerned...

 

[LizzieMaine]

Surely you're aware of the old proverb, "One man's junk is another man's treasure." What most people never seem to learn is that it works the other way around as well.

This is one of the reasons I enjoy newer books and documentaries that make an attempt to set the record straight by disputing "historical fact" (boy, there's a misnomer if ever there was one) with newly discovered facts (which, of course, may be just as dubious). Granted, much of it is subject to interpretation and could be equally as inaccurate as the "official" story, especially when examined purely from a modern perspective and ignoring the perspectives/mores of the relevant eras. But I believe "the truth" is in there somewhere, and the search for it is often as interesting as the results. It does make me question everything I was taught during 12 years of schooling though.

There are certainly certain facts we can know -- Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809 and died of a gunshot wound in 1865, he was elected president in 1860 and was replaced by his vice president Andrew Johnson. Basic facts are one thing. It's how the facts are interpreted where propaganda comes into play, and there's no author of whatever point of view who doesn't indulge in it. A history book without propaganda is an almanac.

 

[Haversack]

LizzieMaine wrote: "Basic facts are one thing. It's how the facts are interpreted where propaganda comes into play, and there's no author of whatever point of view who doesn't indulge in it. A history book without propaganda is an almanac."

Absolutely! Being a historian by training, the basic rule is to answer the questions of who?, what?, when?, where?, why?, how?, and so what? The most important of these is So What?. That is where you earn your bread and butter. Its the author's analysis of factual data and their interpretation of Why Is This Important that makes a history interesting and useful. Just because the author has a known bias doesn't mean that what they wrote is useless. Just look at Procopius and his Secret History...

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

Surely you're aware of the old proverb, "One man's junk is another man's treasure." What most people never seem to learn is that it works the other way around as well.

This is one of the reasons I enjoy newer books and documentaries that make an attempt to set the record straight by disputing "historical fact" (boy, there's a misnomer if ever there was one) with newly discovered facts (which, of course, may be just as dubious). Granted, much of it is subject to interpretation and could be equally as inaccurate as the "official" story, especially when examined purely from a modern perspective and ignoring the perspectives/mores of the relevant eras. But I believe "the truth" is in there somewhere, and the search for it is often as interesting as the results. It does make me question everything I was taught during 12 years of schooling though.

The original saying was, "One man's meat is another man's poison." "Meat" used to mean just "food." My favorite riff on that is "One man's Mede is another man's Persian."

 

[GHT]

The original saying was, "One man's meat is another man's poison." "Meat" used to mean just "food." My favorite riff on that is "One man's Mede is another man's Persian."

Or, one man's fish is another man's poisson.