Posted on 04/26/2010 6:26:23 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
Very nice summation. When it comes to the oft-controversial Led Zeppelin stolen bits - I think it’s often the case that Page came up with the innovative guitar licks. When it came time to go into the studio Plant had to sing *something* and often had to come up with something PDQ. As a consequence some of the lyrical riffs he came up with were ones he already knew. Hence all the plagiary charges. I don’t want to get into the right vs. wrong or who got the writing credits etc. It’s just to say that’s kind of how it went down. I think Led Zeppelin is a great band - one for the ages - and a lot of folks like to throw stones any way they can. And the charge of plagiarism has been the most handy stone to throw.
The Soviet Union officially existed from 1922 to 1991. The Cuban revolution took place in 1959. Picasso lived from 1881 to 1973. At what point in his life, in your opinion, did he NOT put out ugly meaningless garbage ('art')?
Guernica, 1937 Sofia
___________________________________
Dora Maar au Chat, 1941
___________________________________
Baboon and Young (1951)
___________________________________
Nude Woman with a Necklace (1968)
The point of the excerpts are that at one time he was highly involved in the communist party, although not specifically the Soviet Union and it would seem that would be the time he was supposed to be ruining America. His most memorable work all appears to be from before his membership even and then before the time mentioned in the book you have cited.
As for the art, I don’t get much out of anyones I have seen so I am probably not the one to ask. People can get meaning from those I’m quite sure. I just don’t buy that there always has to be one acceptable meaning from the creator for any piece of art.
No use or effect in the US? Are you serious?
From Publishers Weekly:
REVIEW: "This work is a marvelous, carefully-researched study of Picasso's influence on some of the most significant American artists of the 20th century.
Fitzgerald moves chronologically, from the earliest Americans who engaged cubism in the teens (Max Weber, Mardsen Hartley, Man Ray, Stuart Davis), through the modernist investigations of Arshile Gorky, Willem De Kooning and Jackson Pollack, and winds up with Roy Lichtenstien's pop-art and Jasper Johns' postmodern responses to Picasso. Fitzgerald takes great pains to triangulate exhibition specifics with the work and words of each artist to document the precise nature and extent of the influence in each case.
And because the story of Picasso's influence is intertwined with the gradual acceptance of modern art in America, the book also touches on events leading to the foundation of MoMA and the Whitney Museum of American Art, as well as their development during the decades during and after WWII.
The essays here are excellent, filled with rich detail and sustained consideration of each artist; and despite the sophistication of the analysis, Fitzgerald avoids overly-technical or hyper-academic prose, which will make the book accessible to more than just art historians and cultural critics. There is a generous supply of images presented with the text, and they are as successful as Fitzgerald's prose in illuminating the complexities of Picasso's influence on these artists. Both as an exhibition guide and a coffee table book, this volume is outstanding and will appeal to those looking to learn more about these artists or who simply wish have a handsome volume to look at and display."
http://www.amazon.com/Picasso-American-Art-Michael-FitzGerald/dp/0300114524
Have you ever heard of the popular front? Look it up.
"as Utley's book suggests, it was precisely Picasso's unique position—that he was so popular in the West and rarely doctrinaire in his own work—that gave him such a powerful role in the cultural dimension of the Cold War. "Thorez realized this best," Utley says. "Let him alone, he serves us best when he is seen in Europe and America as happy among us, and paints as a man." ...
He wasn’t involved in Cubism at the same time he was a member of the Communist party. It was 30 years after Cubism that he joined the Communist Party. Kind of hard to attribute Cubism to a plot of the Communists to bring down the US.
Still, get me from his popular works that for the most part seem to come from the time before joining the Communist Party, to them being a plot to bring down the US. Were the Communists so powerful as to plant seeds in his head at the turn of the century to try to bring down America?
How naive you are. Of course he couldn't ruin America on his own. He was part of a much larger movement to degrade our culture and propagandize for the communists. Again, see "Popular Front".
"The Popular Front sought to enlist Western artists and intellectuals, some of them not party members but “fellow travelers,” to use art, literature, and music to insinuate the Marxist worldview into the broader culture. The murals of Diego Rivera, the poetry of Langston Hughes, the novels of Howard Fast—all exemplified this approach. It’s an irony that communists should seek to change the culture, of course, since Marxism holds that culture is merely a reflection of underlying economic structures, whose transformation will bring about capitalism’s inevitable collapse."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_urbanities-communist.html
LOL!! The horse can sing better too.
Joni tops my list of most annoying, screechiest, pretentious attempters of song ever.
Dylan, on the other hand, is a sheer genius. Love the guy.
I’m not discounting your point at all about communists trying to do that. I’m asking for an explanation of how Picasso’s cubist period was a part of that when it ended in 1912 and he didn’t join the Communist Party in 1912.
You're the one that keeps bringing up his "most popular works". The guy was a known communist propagandist for decades.
Do yourself a favor and take a break from the rushed responses, read some of the things I posted and actually think about what they say. Then get back to me.
He had more of a cult following.
Did I say anything about his "cubist period"? Again, he was a communist propagandist for decades.
I fixed your typo, btw (1912=1944).
Oops! Sorry, my mistake. You obviously meant 1912, not the year he joined (1944).
I think I see what you're getting at. But I don't think I said anywhere that he invented his bizarre art form with the intention of promoting communism (back in the early 1900s). The Soviets probably just looked at it and decided he would be a great tool for them later on. And just because he didn't join the party until 1944 doesn't mean he wasn't a communist at some point prior. Some of the most dangerous communists never join the party. Instead they hide in the shadows or pretend to be something other than they are.
Agree 100%. Her voice makes my flesh crawl.
And Dylan's doesn't??
Nope.
Thanks. Just wondering.
Thanks for the ping/analysis (#143), BluesDuke...(after reading entire thread). Good stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.