A revolutionary art
collective Fragments of the paper presented by English intellectuals in the II International Congress of Writers for the Defense of Culture in July 1937, taken from Time magazine of Spain, number VII, Valencia, August 1937.
A series of contradictions tormented us [before the war]. The pure, anti-human, could not satisfy in the background, the revolutionary, as we offered only weak signs of social propaganda which need not understand, and whose simple content could not suffice. However, and perhaps instinctively, rather than understanding every time we hand over the people. And you might even politically, socially and economically we understood the Revolution. However, less than a total and human way. The painting, poetry and literature that interested us was not revolutionary, it was not a consequence of ideological and sentimental, or if it was, it was only in such a small part, on the part of a political slogan, that the problem was standing. So, on one hand, we abhorred the skepticism, but on the other, we could not support the absolute and total absence.
In short, as was done in art could not satisfy a deep longing, though vague, vague, humanity, and secondly, that of the Revolution, was not enough either to satisfy the same human background that we aimed, precisely because it was totally revolutionary. The Revolution, at least what we had for such could not be understood ideologically at the mere expression of a political slogan or a purely formal change of subject.
Abstract art in recent years it seemed false. But we could not accept as revolutionary as true, a painting, for example, by the mere fact that its realization was referring to paint a worker with his fist or with a red flag, or any other symbol, leaving the reality most essential unexpressed. Because this was so reactionary that any painter as a person and as a painter could improvise at any time, a painting that was technically even better and so revolutionary, at least, as the other, with just paint the same worker to the same fist raised. Just paint a symbol and not a reality.
The problem was and must be substantive, we wanted all art it took place in the Revolution, passionately in accordance with the Revolution, ideologically respond to the same human content of this revolution, to the same extent, with the same intensity and with the same passion with which they have produced all the great movements spirit. Because even in music, the most abstract of arts, which alone can directly or indirectly relate concepts, it has been such a perfect match at particular moments in history such as Bach representing Christianity, Chopin, for romance, etc. And everything that was not created with the same absolute ratio values, whatever was "revolutionary symbols" rather than "revolutionary reality" could not express the depth of the problem.
Revolution is not only a form, not just a symbol, but represents a vividly concrete content, a sense of man, all, or even a well-defined categories as points of reference for its essentiality. And so, that could be called an art, in truth, revolutionary, must refer to that substance, involving each and every one of these categories in each and every one of his moments of expression, because if not, we must assume that the very concept of revolution is confusing and without profiles, without rigorous content. If not, if we appreciate only formal appearances, we fall into errors that otherwise any plane, are grossly unacceptable. Like, for example, saying that is revolutionary to give alms to a beggar. All that would take the wrong end of the leaves and only leaves. And finally term, we know that, very commonly, in the mercy of the beggar is not a little hypocrisy, "always", a conception of the world, according to a certain predetermined order, "which, like poor that they will never cease to be, we must help you. "
Well, in the field of literary and artistic creation is not possible to be richer than objectively, what is more likely in the future, support a charity, however well intentioned it is time to personal will. We do not want to admit it, but as to the immediate needs that we underestimated anything, since they depend on all-a painting, a literature in which, taking the wrong end of the leaves, they believe everything is painted or described, etc., with good workers, the workers smiling, etc., making the working class, more powerful reality today, a decorative symbol weak . No. Workers are more than good, strong, etc. These men have passions, sufferings, joys much more complex than these simple mechanistic interpretations wish. In reality, painting, writing, thinking and feeling, in short, that way, so much as thought to be dolled up something that really does not need makeup, you think and feel that reality is something else.
Well, we declare that our highest aspiration is to express essentially the reality with which we agree poetic, political and philosophical. That reality that today, for the extraordinary dramatic dimensions that opens, the full human content that drama implies, is the exact match with the feeling, with the inner world of each one of us.
say, and we may be sure, that at last there is already conflict between objective reality and the inner world. What is neither casual nor only the result of our effort to achieve such identification, it is the culmination of a process objective. To the extent that people English for "the force of blood," regains its traditional values \u200b\u200b(ie, that part of their tradition which is a value, that tradition which is positive), this integration occurs spontaneously, as a gift, which could not happen while not arrive the same time, because even he had only one hand, fighting, war, but without the high values \u200b\u200bthat can have that is now our war, and secondly, the only hope.
0 comments:
Post a Comment