Two things. Non serious, then serious. :)

[x] Gum has fallen out of your mouth when you were talking. [x] Gum has fallen out of your mouth when you were NOT talking. [x] You have ran into a glass/screen door. [ ] You have jumped out of a moving vehicle. [x] You have thought of something funny and laughed, then people gave you weird looks. [x]You have ran into a tree/bush. [ ] You know that it IS possible to lick your elbow…[NB: Not through me, but Tom Nixon can… it’s creepy]rn[x] You have tried to lick your elbowrn[ ] You never knew that the Alphabet and Twinkle Twinkle Little Star have the same rythm. [x] You just tried to sing them. -rn[x] You have tripped on your shoelace and fallen. [x] You have choked on your own spit . [ ] You have seen the Matrix and still don’t get it. [ ] You’ve never seen the Matrix. [ ] You type only with two fingers. [x] You have accidentally caught something on firern[x] You tried to drink out of a straw, but it went into your nose/eyes. [x] You have caught yourself drooling. [ ] You have fallen asleep in class and started to talk/drool, or snorern[ ] If someone says “fart” you laughrn[ ] Sometimes you just stop thinkingrn[x] You are telling a story and forget what you were talking aboutrn[x] People often shake their heads and walk away from yourn[ ] You are often told to use your “inside voice”. [ ] You use your fingers to do simple mathrn[x] You have eaten a bugrn[x] You are taking this test when you should be doing something more importantrn[x]You have put your clothes on backwards or inside out, andrndidn’t realize itrn[x] You’ve looked all over for something and realized it was in your handrn[ ] You repost bulletins because you are scared that what they say will happen to you if you don’t. [ ] You break a lot of things. [ ] Your friends know not to use big words around you. [x] You tilt your head when you’re confusedrn[x] You have fallen out of your chair beforern[ ] When you’re laying in bed, you try to find pictures in the texture of the ceiling… [ ] The word “umm” is used many times a day.

rnThe Art of Politics or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Propaganda

rnIn the nineteenth century, an attitude towards art and its creation was realised and exploited in the somewhat trite saying that attributed the creation of art as its own purpose – namely, that art exists for its own sake. Today, however, this saying is ignored in favour of oft-asked questions: for what reason should a writer write a novel, or a painter paint a world or an image? Does the writer choose words for the purpose of inserting emotional responses in his or her audience? Does the writer set out to create a piece with a specific end in sight, an end that will result in a certain event or effect that the writer intended? Perhaps a writer can create with a purpose; perhaps a writer merely discovers purpose in his works after they are already in existence upon the page. The opinions of literary theorists are varied upon the subject matter, and when the uses that art and literature are put to in the real world are examined, a disturbing variation between literary theory and literary reality begins to emerge.

National Socialist Germany was, in one sense, a triumph of the application of the written and spoken word to a mass audience event. The use of language and the writer’s craft, and the performance of said words by a man who was as much an actor as a national leader, illuminates a key fact that must be acknowledged in the modern world when determining the purpose of the written word: art is political. This is not to describe all artworks and all writings as political in nature, but rather to hone the point that the use of the written word as a political tool is a proven actuality in modern society. In the example of Nazi Germany, the use of propaganda is often cited as an impressive facet of the Nazi party’s control of the German state. From the use of fliers and leaflets hammered onto walls, to purpose-written speeches designed to inflame the masses and delivered by Adolf Hitler himself, Nazi Germany took the written word and applied it with devastating effect as a tool of political control (Riefenstahl, 1935). The Nazis were not the only group in their political context using the written word, opposition groups such as the White Rose movement distributed political tracts tracing opposing positions and decrying the German government’s actions; again utilising the written word as a tool to reach and convince the populace (Rothemund, 2005).

Prior to National Socialism, during the mid-nineteenth century a pair of Germans composed a document that would shake the world. It’s first lines read: “a spectre is haunting Europe - The spectre of Communism.” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Manifesto of the Communist Party became a rallying point for revolutionary movements across the globe, the written word illuminating the injustices of the old systems and giving a blueprint to follow towards the so-called ‘radiant future’ of perfect human equality (Marx, Engels, 1848). Marx and Engels’ manifesto has withstood a hundred and fifty years of human history to be still quoted and read as a foundational tract today, resulting in an impressive political mileage for a document intended to be read as an explanation for the presence and existence of an alternate politics, that of Communism, in the mid-nineteenth century. Additionally, Communist theory included an interesting credo about art itself, namely that art found value only in serving a moral or didactic purpose - and intriguing perspective to hold, considering the literary origins of the communist movement as expressions of the written word, and also the necessarily political inflection that art for the sake of community service must bring.

Interesting parallels between art and politics can be also drawn from the movement referred to as Futurists, the compatriots of Marinetti in Italy and Russia during the early twentieth century. Preaching the destruction of the old and the elevation of the new technology, the Futurists were politically focused from their beginnings, melding their artworks with their politics to form a single unit. Unlike the later use of art as propaganda by Nazi Germany, or the continued application of communist theories by varying political movements and brotherhoods, the Futurists understood the political motivations of their works themselves, and attempted to have them realised within their own immediate world (Marinetti, 1909).

Despite the often-political utilisation of art and writing, literary theorists stress other major factors as the impetus for composition of writing. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his essay ‘What is Literature’, goes into great detail as to the purpose of the written word, and the necessary interpretative and associated apparatus that is included with it.

The author, to Sartre, is no more a creator than he is a divine being. The author provides a framework through which his audience themselves create the reality of the story. The author cannot connect with the reader’s viewpoints of the story; he is able to see the ending before the story has even begun. The reader, however, interprets, hopes, decides and believes all manner of actions are possible and likely to happen within the course of the narrative, and in believing these things to be present brings them into existence as he interprets the story via reading it. The meaning that is present in a story or a text, Sartre believes, is present primarily due to the reading of the work that is performed by the reader, and not by anything that is incorporated within it by the author (Sartre, 1947). He allows that texts may be slanted in a particular direction by the author, but that ultimately, the reader is the main factor in determining the text’s eventual interpretation.

The differences between Sartre’s view, that the interpretation of the work by the reader is what gives meaning, and the seemingly “real-world” utilisation of writing for political ends are not as incompatible as they may seem. Sartre insists that the reader is the vessel that pours meaning into a text; and politicians utilise public opinion and attempt to influence public perceptions en masse to create desirable outcomes, via the interpretations the public gathers from available material. The major differentiation between the political manipulation of a text and the more ‘pure’ reading of a text in the vein of Sartre can be considered to lie in a reading that reflects the areas of censorship, and the area of target audience.

Art for the sake of politics is naturally restricted, so that only the pieces that lend credence to a particular viewpoint will be revealed to the public. Certainly, they are free to interpret as they wish - but the text is already slanted towards the viewpoint that the politician intends. According to Sartre, this should be impossible, or at least incredibly difficult for an author to control, as the reader or audience should bring their own meanings to the text, and therefore determine the meaning that results from it. Reality, however, in the examples of such political groups as the National Socialists of Germany, the Communist Part of Russia, and more recently the political and media circuses of the United States, would suggest otherwise. The reader may be free to draw his or her own meaning from the text - but the political slant of the authors, and the clues that they insert into their writings, suggests that the meaning has already been determined.

References

Balla G (1913) Abstract Speed (painting), Accessed: Online (2/5/2007), Available: http://www.futurism.org.uk/balla/balla_im56.htm

Marinetti, F (1909); The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism 1909; WRIT229 Course Reader 2006, University of Wollongong, Australia.

Marx K, Engels F (1848), Manifesto of the Communist Party; Accessed: Online (3/5/2007), Available: http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Sartre, J (1947) What is Literature? WRIT319 2007 Course Reader, University of Wollongong, Australia.

Excerpts from Triumph des Willens: das Dokument vom Reichsparteitag 1934; 1935 film recording, Leni Riefenstahl, Germany.

Sophie Scholl – The Final Days; 2005 film recording, Marc Rothemund, Germany.

Russolo L (1911) Revolt (painting), Accessed: Online (2/5/2007), Available: http://www.futurism.org.uk/russolo/rus_im21.htm

Off to finish the speech component of the serious. Curses Canon for manufacturing a faulty bloody printer cartridge, that requires me to voyage to Uni a half hour or so early in order to print off the damn thing and then make overheads. Curse you!

Alcata’riel.

-Andiyar