Kennedy Center Bans Concert

Started by arpeggio, February 19, 2025, 03:49:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

Madiel

#60
March 22, 2025, 12:16:11 AM Last Edit: March 22, 2025, 12:21:02 AM by Madiel
Quote from: arpeggio on March 22, 2025, 12:08:59 AMIf someone wants to start a generic "artists thread", go ahead.

Well, I think the point was that it was you who had deviated from this being a thread about the Kennedy Center. Schiff's decision doesn't seem to be specifically related to that unless I'm missing something.

I'm also beginning to wonder whether the cancelled Marine Band concert, which you've referred to several times, had anything to do with the Kennedy Center either. Clearly that story has something to do with Trump's views on DEI, but was the concert ever going to be at the Kennedy Center, or have you just decided this thread is about the interaction between Trump and music?

It was you who warned on the first page of the thread not to stray too far from the topic. And it's you who seems to be straying.
Every single post on the forum is unnecessary. Including the ones that are interesting or useful.

arpeggio

#62
March 26, 2025, 07:26:42 AM
Latest on Kennedy Center:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2025/03/26/kennedy-center-social-impact-team-trump/

I realize that many here may not care about what happens with the Kennedy Center.  I am a resident of Northern Virginia.  I have been attending performances at the Center since it opened.  I am a member of the City of Fairfax band.  We have performed a few times at the Center.  Playing on the stage has been a great experience.

The administration's policies may go beyond the Center.  One area that concerns me are actions that may affect the military bands: Marine, Army, Navy and Air Force.  They are an important part of the cultural life of the Washington, DC area.  My wife and I are regular attendants of the Marine Band concert series. The Marine Band has already cancelled a concert because of the administration.

Mandryka

#63
March 27, 2025, 04:27:19 AM Last Edit: March 27, 2025, 04:31:10 AM by Mandryka
Just speaking entirely generally of course, fascists always want to control the arts -- I guess it's a testimony to the power of the arts in fact. Hitler and Stalin wrote the instruction manual for modern dictators to follow.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

T. D.

#64
March 27, 2025, 05:29:49 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on March 27, 2025, 04:27:19 AMJust speaking entirely generally of course, fascists always want to control the arts -- I guess it's a testimony to the power of the arts in fact. Hitler and Stalin wrote the instruction manual for modern dictators to follow.



True.
I'm really surprised that I haven't read any news stories about NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) funding. I expect that to be drastically slashed, and the remaining funds MAGA-ized. I sincerely hope that people who receive arts grants have been planning for this.

relm1

#65
March 27, 2025, 05:32:08 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on March 27, 2025, 04:27:19 AMJust speaking entirely generally of course, fascists always want to control the arts -- I guess it's a testimony to the power of the arts in fact. Hitler and Stalin wrote the instruction manual for modern dictators to follow.

Why is that?  Why do fascists want to control the arts?  Isn't it enough to control the press?

ritter

#66
March 27, 2025, 05:39:45 AM Last Edit: March 27, 2025, 05:44:40 AM by ritter
Just speaking entirely generally of course, let us not permit this thread to degenerate into an outright political discussion. If it does, it will be immediately closed. Thanks for your understanding!

 « Et n'oubliez pas que le trombone est à Voltaire ce que l'optimisme est à la percussion. » 

Brian

#67
March 27, 2025, 05:47:15 AM
Quote from: relm1 on March 27, 2025, 05:32:08 AMWhy is that?  Why do fascists want to control the arts?  Isn't it enough to control the press?

I recommend this book (which includes several chapters about classical music)



Three main reasons that I can remember:
(a) the arts are such a good propaganda mechanism;
(b) the purpose of fascism is to enforce by law a specific race and culture, so they have a natural interest in cultural output as an expression of the master race or as an expression of the society that they want to see. e.g. banning Jewish composers
(c) the aesthetic of fascism is primarily about projecting power, for example, designing buildings that show that the government is powerful, filming rallies in ways that glorify the power of the speaker. I don't think it's political or contentious at all to say that the aesthetic of the Tesla CyberTruck is intended to display power. I recently also read an article suggesting that today's right wing politicians love AI-generated artwork because of this same element: the fact that they don't need human artists to create "art" is more important than the fact that AI "art" is terrible and bad.

SimonNZ

#68
March 27, 2025, 08:51:15 PM Last Edit: March 27, 2025, 09:06:36 PM by SimonNZ
Quote from: T. D. on March 27, 2025, 05:29:49 AMTrue.
I'm really surprised that I haven't read any news stories about NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) funding. I expect that to be drastically slashed, and the remaining funds MAGA-ized. I sincerely hope that people who receive arts grants have been planning for this.

Wikipedia:

"2017-18 proposed defunding

The budget outline submitted by then-president Donald Trump on March 16, 2017, to Congress would have eliminated all funding for the program.[26][27] Congress approved a budget that retained NEA funding. The White House budget proposed for fiscal year 2018 again called for elimination of funding, but Congress retained the funding for another year.[28]"

I had previously thought he had succeeded and it was gone.

AnotherSpin

#69
March 27, 2025, 09:27:00 PM
Quote from: Brian on March 27, 2025, 05:47:15 AMI recommend this book (which includes several chapters about classical music)



Three main reasons that I can remember:
(a) the arts are such a good propaganda mechanism;
(b) the purpose of fascism is to enforce by law a specific race and culture, so they have a natural interest in cultural output as an expression of the master race or as an expression of the society that they want to see. e.g. banning Jewish composers
(c) the aesthetic of fascism is primarily about projecting power, for example, designing buildings that show that the government is powerful, filming rallies in ways that glorify the power of the speaker. I don't think it's political or contentious at all to say that the aesthetic of the Tesla CyberTruck is intended to display power. I recently also read an article suggesting that today's right wing politicians love AI-generated artwork because of this same element: the fact that they don't need human artists to create "art" is more important than the fact that AI "art" is terrible and bad.

By contrast, the Kremlin champions Russian classical music — from Tchaikovsky to Rachmaninoff — as the official soundtrack of its ideological ambitions in last decades. State-backed initiatives wrap these composers in patriotic messaging, casting them as cultural cornerstones of the so-called Russian World, a grand civilizational concept conveniently deployed against Western influence.

Putin's cultivated image as a classical music aficionado — he often mentions Tchaikovsky as a personal favorite — neatly complements this cultural nationalism. It's a familiar playbook: turning heritage into something sacred to justify power, sponsoring WWII-themed operas through presidential grants, and presenting Russia as the noble guardian of "high culture" against the supposed moral decline of the West. Of course, the control here is more refined than the old-fashioned book-burning — instead, dissenting voices are politely drowned out by a flood of subsidized patriotism. In today's Moscow, nobody's setting fire to manuscripts anymore; they're too busy unveiling golden statues of state-approved artists.

T. D.

#71
March 28, 2025, 02:54:43 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 27, 2025, 08:51:15 PMWikipedia:

"2017-18 proposed defunding

The budget outline submitted by then-president Donald Trump on March 16, 2017, to Congress would have eliminated all funding for the program.[26][27] Congress approved a budget that retained NEA funding. The White House budget proposed for fiscal year 2018 again called for elimination of funding, but Congress retained the funding for another year.[28]"

I had previously thought he had succeeded and it was gone.



Apparently it rebounded and still exists.
Per Wiki, MAGA has begun the elimination process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts

Brian

#73
March 28, 2025, 04:48:30 AM
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 27, 2025, 09:27:00 PMBy contrast, the Kremlin champions Russian classical music — from Tchaikovsky to Rachmaninoff — as the official soundtrack of its ideological ambitions in last decades. State-backed initiatives wrap these composers in patriotic messaging, casting them as cultural cornerstones of the so-called Russian World, a grand civilizational concept conveniently deployed against Western influence.

Putin's cultivated image as a classical music aficionado — he often mentions Tchaikovsky as a personal favorite — neatly complements this cultural nationalism. It's a familiar playbook: turning heritage into something sacred to justify power, sponsoring WWII-themed operas through presidential grants, and presenting Russia as the noble guardian of "high culture" against the supposed moral decline of the West. Of course, the control here is more refined than the old-fashioned book-burning — instead, dissenting voices are politely drowned out by a flood of subsidized patriotism. In today's Moscow, nobody's setting fire to manuscripts anymore; they're too busy unveiling golden statues of state-approved artists.
I am half Turkish and Erdogan has engaged in a very similar campaign over his autocracy, reclaiming Ottoman leaders and "heroes" and converting museums back into houses of worship.

relm1

#74
March 28, 2025, 05:48:05 AM
Quote from: Brian on March 27, 2025, 05:47:15 AMI recommend this book (which includes several chapters about classical music)



Three main reasons that I can remember:
(a) the arts are such a good propaganda mechanism;
(b) the purpose of fascism is to enforce by law a specific race and culture, so they have a natural interest in cultural output as an expression of the master race or as an expression of the society that they want to see. e.g. banning Jewish composers
(c) the aesthetic of fascism is primarily about projecting power, for example, designing buildings that show that the government is powerful, filming rallies in ways that glorify the power of the speaker. I don't think it's political or contentious at all to say that the aesthetic of the Tesla CyberTruck is intended to display power. I recently also read an article suggesting that today's right wing politicians love AI-generated artwork because of this same element: the fact that they don't need human artists to create "art" is more important than the fact that AI "art" is terrible and bad.

So art is seen as an extension of media...controlling the message/information to minimize critical information while projecting propaganda. 

Mandryka

#75
March 28, 2025, 07:05:46 AM Last Edit: March 28, 2025, 07:09:27 AM by Mandryka
Just speaking entirely generally of course, fascists present their control of the arts as though it's benign, merely a project to restore truth and sanity and to reverse the spread of divisive ideologies which diminish the strengths and achievement of the state.

For example, Hitler said certain forms of art were "degenerate" using precisely this sort of language.

The playbook for today's fascists was written by Hitler and Stalin.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

relm1

#76
March 28, 2025, 07:51:27 AM
Trump is going to remove critical history from the national museums. I guess he doesn't believe slavery should be mentioned in our history.

https://thegrio.com/2025/03/28/trump-executive-order-on-smithsonian-targets-funding-for-programs-with-improper-ideology/

AnotherSpin

#78
March 28, 2025, 09:03:53 PM
Quote from: relm1 on March 28, 2025, 05:48:05 AMSo art is seen as an extension of media...controlling the message/information to minimize critical information while projecting propaganda. 

In totalitarian regimes, art becomes a weapon of ideology. Lenin claimed that "art belongs to the people," but in truth, it belongs to power — a tool to shape the masses. In modern Russia, Tchaikovsky is no different from long-range missiles: both serve the will of the dictator.

AnotherSpin

#79
March 28, 2025, 11:55:29 PM
Of course, art influences people in any society, including non-totalitarian ones. It does this by promoting certain ideas, shaping public opinion, and playing on emotions. In non-totalitarian societies, art is often used to push social or political ideas, like those connected to woke culture, etc.

Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions