Art, Artist, Analysis and Annales

The era of post-modernism has come with a breaking off from the regular canons of aesthetics to something avant-garde and something that was inconceivable even a few decades before the onset of post modernism. What post-modernism gave to the world was a socio-realistic form of art which juxtaposed the whole notion of modern lifestyle, as confusing and as dissipative in nature as it is, into art, the result being something so exquisite and revealing that it has still left some questions about the sustainability of art in the modern era. The question arises now, in the validation of everything that comes into the mind of an artist into an art form, without the restrictive schools that would judge the form by its order, by its construction, which are absent now, and the artist has the proverbial freedom to call a stain on the wall a form of art, and here rises the question whether art can still be perceived as objectively as it was or whether it has become completely susceptible to changing opinions and changing perceptions, that one person may regard it as the highest art from whereas another person might completely disregard the importance of the art form as a bastard piece of art. It is this perception of the people about the art, and more that we seek to clarify further, in our analysis of what actually is post-modern art is in microscopic, macroscopic and fractal levels, each having its own importance to a certain section like the microscopic aspect which deals with the individual and the art, the macroscopic aspect deals with the society and the art and the fractal approach deals with the notion of artist and art, encompassing effects of both the individual and the society on the art form, the other way round.

The microscopic approach of the art is completely dependent upon the frameset of the individual and his psycho-analytical critique of the art form completely ignoring the affiliation of the art form, if it has any, to a particular school of thought. The theory behind the judgment of an art form can be many, ranging from the emotional indulgence of the piece to its realistic significance on the life of the individual, to the extent that the individual would call himself ‘touched’ by the art which itself implies a level of indulgence in the art in a relative sort of way. This often happens with a realistic piece of art or something that pertains to the emotional sentiments of the human being and reflects it like the theory of Aristotelian mimesis. The other aspect of critical appreciation is being ‘lost’ in the art which often happens between an individual and an abstract piece of art, whose meaning is latent and it is on the individual to find its meaning and so there is a direct connect with the abstraction of the art and the psychology of the individual. This kind of indulgence is dissimilar to that indulgence that occurs with respect to a realistic piece of art. If an art is surreal, it appeals the inner psychology of the viewer or the reader and the art can well be defined as meaningless, but if we examine the art microscopically dissecting each factor that constitutes the art, we find an indulgence with the art form through our whole process of understanding the art, which is termed as being ‘lost’ in the art. There are many other forms of critical appreciation through the microscopic aspect, for instance art can also be philosophical and hence give its patrons the knowledge and wisdom of philosophy, without directly imposing upon them the constructive phrases of philosophy. Many forms of literature, particularly in the mid-nineteenth century had a heavy influence of philosophy in their works, particularly French writers. Much of Nerval’s work is based on societal philosophy which hangs like a bookmark through his works and it is particularly that philosophical understanding of French society during that age that the readers feel compelled to read about in his works. We shall, in our course of analysis, look through Rousseau, due to his avant-garde outlook in his works all though his existence, once more through a different aspect too.

Now, we take to the macroscopic aspect of understanding a work of post-modernism. When we talk about any macroscopic perception, there is generally a collective approach based and we know that opinions highly bias and shape a collective perception, and sometimes public opinions can be stronger in determining the worth of an art form through this approach than the actual skill of the artist of the class and brilliance of the work in a macroscopic perspective. We shall see now how artistic public opinions come to shape. Like any other piece of public information, public opinions too, graft out of the dialectics, intellectual debates and privileged critiques of ‘artistic bourgeoisie’. 

This artistic bourgeoisie is the determinant of worth or worthlessness of an art form and it is comprised of the so called manufacturers of consent, the print media, the established artists and the enterprise of intellectuals. However just their review of an art may be, it is bound to be biased in some way or the other, maybe through the frameset of the society, the general social conditions or conflicts between the artists. Apart from these direct factors, there are also some indirect modes or agents that affect the interpretation of an art form which are often overlooked or not given serious consideration. These agents include things like the theme and genre of the art from. While there is sufficient interest in the theme and genre, one would say, still there has been little to determine what particular theme or what particular genre would a post-modern piece of art like a meta-fiction or a split-fiction or an anti-fiction falls into. Neither is there a fixed genre for these works nor is there a need for a better understanding of these post-modern sub-spheres. Albeit, these agents affect highly in forming the public opinion about art work, we still waste our resources predicting the ‘popular genre’ instead of understanding the ‘popular movement’ behind that genre. These are some aspects of perception through macroscopic analyses and the factors that affect this analysis. However, the essence of the macroscopic perspective is incomplete without the socio-economic conditions that the work is expected to pertain to. For example, at the time of Rousseau, the French revolution aroused a diversion of public opinions which was very strict, rigid and opposing. On one hand were the pro-revolutionists and on the other the anti-revolutionists and in this tumult, Rousseau sought the essentiality of neutrality and readily became the bridge between the French bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

This brings us to the fractal approach where we take into consideration, in a very bemusing and innovative way, as innovative as post-modernism technically is, the amalgamation of the macro and the micro perspectives and prove that how both of these aspects can be satisfied without essentially back-firing and leading to the disvalue of post-modern art form. The fractal approach is the nonlinear approach wherein we assess the art form from a completely different manner, not assertively but in a way society generally does but not as healthily and as frequently as it should and even if it does, it lacks the ability to make fractal analysis the generalized manner of assessment of post modern art. What we have to understand while looking at post modern art is that it may or may not cater to our specific needs and we shouldn’t disregard the quality of a good artwork if it doesn’t. What we basically need to do is to look not just at the art but also at the artist, not in a way that we need to acquaint ourselves with what the artist thinks about his work, but we need to simply treat the artist also as a form of art.

In the age of post-modernity, there has been aroused a certain associative tendency in us that we tend to label as ‘stereotype’. This characteristic, the so called stereotyping is actually looked down upon by the society, but in a way this stereotypical view gives us a scope for generalization of certain things that are too infinitesimal to be determined otherwise. So what we might think is a ‘stereotypical thought process’ and is supposedly is flawed is actually not flawed but a super-intelligent form of taxonomic organization that is beneficial for our understanding of things, but the problem lies in our misuse of this capability. Let us now focus on this stereotypical thinking on the post-modernist movement of the twenty first century. Through our inherent, thought process of generalization, we have already started associating the artist with the art, making the artist something more than the mere imitator of emotions; we make the artist the emotion itself. When we look the art form through this generalized notion, we involve ourselves mildly, if not totally, with other works of the artist also, and in that manner, we associate the art to the general mood of the artist, making the artist itself a ‘genre’ of his art. This perspective is very evident in film and entertainment where certain actors associate themselves with genres, and while they limit themselves to these genres, they also help in defining and redefining the genre by their works, like action heroes or romantic heroes, who are known for their works specifically in that genre. This kind of free but associative self-organizational school of divergence is lacking in the era of post-modernism, which we dearly need. Through mutual and self-association of the artist with the art, or the manufactured association by the critics of the artist with the art will help us define and in a better way, characterize post-modernity in the movement of art in the twenty first century.

Art, Artist, Analysis and Annales

The era of post-modernism has come with a breaking off from the regular canons of aesthetics to something avant-garde and something that was inconceivable even a few decades before the onset of post modernism. What post-modernism gave to the world was a socio-realistic form of art which juxtaposed the whole notion of modern lifestyle, as confusing and as dissipative in nature as it is, into art, the result being something so exquisite and revealing that it has still left some questions about the sustainability of art in the modern era. The question arises now, in the validation of everything that comes into the mind of an artist into an art form, without the restrictive schools that would judge the form by its order, by its construction, which are absent now, and the artist has the proverbial freedom to call a stain on the wall a form of art, and here rises the question whether art can still be perceived as objectively as it was or whether it has become completely susceptible to changing opinions and changing perceptions, that one person may regard it as the highest art from whereas another person might completely disregard the importance of the art form as a bastard piece of art. It is this perception of the people about the art, and more that we seek to clarify further, in our analysis of what actually is post-modern art is in microscopic, macroscopic and fractal levels, each having its own importance to a certain section like the microscopic aspect which deals with the individual and the art, the macroscopic aspect deals with the society and the art and the fractal approach deals with the notion of artist and art, encompassing effects of both the individual and the society on the art form, the other way round.

The microscopic approach of the art is completely dependent upon the frameset of the individual and his psycho-analytical critique of the art form completely ignoring the affiliation of the art form, if it has any, to a particular school of thought. The theory behind the judgment of an art form can be many, ranging from the emotional indulgence of the piece to its realistic significance on the life of the individual, to the extent that the individual would call himself ‘touched’ by the art which itself implies a level of indulgence in the art in a relative sort of way. This often happens with a realistic piece of art or something that pertains to the emotional sentiments of the human being and reflects it like the theory of Aristotelian mimesis. The other aspect of critical appreciation is being ‘lost’ in the art which often happens between an individual and an abstract piece of art, whose meaning is latent and it is on the individual to find its meaning and so there is a direct connect with the abstraction of the art and the psychology of the individual. This kind of indulgence is dissimilar to that indulgence that occurs with respect to a realistic piece of art. If an art is surreal, it appeals the inner psychology of the viewer or the reader and the art can well be defined as meaningless, but if we examine the art microscopically dissecting each factor that constitutes the art, we find an indulgence with the art form through our whole process of understanding the art, which is termed as being ‘lost’ in the art. There are many other forms of critical appreciation through the microscopic aspect, for instance art can also be philosophical and hence give its patrons the knowledge and wisdom of philosophy, without directly imposing upon them the constructive phrases of philosophy. Many forms of literature, particularly in the mid-nineteenth century had a heavy influence of philosophy in their works, particularly French writers. Much of Nerval’s work is based on societal philosophy which hangs like a bookmark through his works and it is particularly that philosophical understanding of French society during that age that the readers feel compelled to read about in his works. We shall, in our course of analysis, look through Rousseau, due to his avant-garde outlook in his works all though his existence, once more through a different aspect too.

Now, we take to the macroscopic aspect of understanding a work of post-modernism. When we talk about any macroscopic perception, there is generally a collective approach based and we know that opinions highly bias and shape a collective perception, and sometimes public opinions can be stronger in determining the worth of an art form through this approach than the actual skill of the artist of the class and brilliance of the work in a macroscopic perspective. We shall see now how artistic public opinions come to shape. Like any other piece of public information, public opinions too, graft out of the dialectics, intellectual debates and privileged critiques of ‘artistic bourgeoisie’. 

This artistic bourgeoisie is the determinant of worth or worthlessness of an art form and it is comprised of the so called manufacturers of consent, the print media, the established artists and the enterprise of intellectuals. However just their review of an art may be, it is bound to be biased in some way or the other, maybe through the frameset of the society, the general social conditions or conflicts between the artists. Apart from these direct factors, there are also some indirect modes or agents that affect the interpretation of an art form which are often overlooked or not given serious consideration. These agents include things like the theme and genre of the art from. While there is sufficient interest in the theme and genre, one would say, still there has been little to determine what particular theme or what particular genre would a post-modern piece of art like a meta-fiction or a split-fiction or an anti-fiction falls into. Neither is there a fixed genre for these works nor is there a need for a better understanding of these post-modern sub-spheres. Albeit, these agents affect highly in forming the public opinion about art work, we still waste our resources predicting the ‘popular genre’ instead of understanding the ‘popular movement’ behind that genre. These are some aspects of perception through macroscopic analyses and the factors that affect this analysis. However, the essence of the macroscopic perspective is incomplete without the socio-economic conditions that the work is expected to pertain to. For example, at the time of Rousseau, the French revolution aroused a diversion of public opinions which was very strict, rigid and opposing. On one hand were the pro-revolutionists and on the other the anti-revolutionists and in this tumult, Rousseau sought the essentiality of neutrality and readily became the bridge between the French bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

This brings us to the fractal approach where we take into consideration, in a very bemusing and innovative way, as innovative as post-modernism technically is, the amalgamation of the macro and the micro perspectives and prove that how both of these aspects can be satisfied without essentially back-firing and leading to the disvalue of post-modern art form. The fractal approach is the nonlinear approach wherein we assess the art form from a completely different manner, not assertively but in a way society generally does but not as healthily and as frequently as it should and even if it does, it lacks the ability to make fractal analysis the generalized manner of assessment of post modern art. What we have to understand while looking at post modern art is that it may or may not cater to our specific needs and we shouldn’t disregard the quality of a good artwork if it doesn’t. What we basically need to do is to look not just at the art but also at the artist, not in a way that we need to acquaint ourselves with what the artist thinks about his work, but we need to simply treat the artist also as a form of art.

In the age of post-modernity, there has been aroused a certain associative tendency in us that we tend to label as ‘stereotype’. This characteristic, the so called stereotyping is actually looked down upon by the society, but in a way this stereotypical view gives us a scope for generalization of certain things that are too infinitesimal to be determined otherwise. So what we might think is a ‘stereotypical thought process’ and is supposedly is flawed is actually not flawed but a super-intelligent form of taxonomic organization that is beneficial for our understanding of things, but the problem lies in our misuse of this capability. Let us now focus on this stereotypical thinking on the post-modernist movement of the twenty first century. Through our inherent, thought process of generalization, we have already started associating the artist with the art, making the artist something more than the mere imitator of emotions; we make the artist the emotion itself. When we look the art form through this generalized notion, we involve ourselves mildly, if not totally, with other works of the artist also, and in that manner, we associate the art to the general mood of the artist, making the artist itself a ‘genre’ of his art. This perspective is very evident in film and entertainment where certain actors associate themselves with genres, and while they limit themselves to these genres, they also help in defining and redefining the genre by their works, like action heroes or romantic heroes, who are known for their works specifically in that genre. This kind of free but associative self-organizational school of divergence is lacking in the era of post-modernism, which we dearly need. Through mutual and self-association of the artist with the art, or the manufactured association by the critics of the artist with the art will help us define and in a better way, characterize post-modernity in the movement of art in the twenty first century.

Nexus- of Whom?

Behind the bright lights and the glimmering of the Si Venkateswara College festival lies a dark and sordid truth, the reality, the grim reality, of hoarding, illegal profiteering and lobbying looked after and sanctioned by the greater part of the administration, the Nexus Committee of volunteers, the Fine Arts Association and sad to say, even the professors and the principal of the college. I post this information for all to see and deduce that ‘Venky’, the most reputed and elite college of South Campus is not at all free from blemish. In fact, it has stooped to the level of lobbying and dissipation suited that even Mexican drug cartels shrug their shoulders off on, and draw the line. Yes, Venkateswara College has fallen to the level of illegality and the P.A to the Principal shied off one step from accepting it.

The whole fiasco was fuelled on the third day, with the news of arrival of noted Bollywood singer Mohit Chauhan, or shall one say, a Bob Dylan rip-off because at least the photographs on the passes of the concert suggest so. The passes, and their controlled demand and supply were the chief problem of the whole situation of supposed depletion and scarcity of passes that was deliberately made possible by the administration by the controlled distribution of passes. Let it be noted that virtually no passes were distributed, even to students of the college on the day of the concert even though passes were ample in the hands of the administration. The P.A to Principal refused to distribute the passes stating that those were his ‘private….’ and then failed to finish the sentence. In his defense, he issued a statement that the passes for the concert were officially over. Let us consider also this notion for the sake of an argument on behalf of the administration. The population of people showing up for the concert reached its peak at ten thousand students flooding the huge Venkateswara ground, probably more. Each student was granted two passes in the days before the concert. Let us assume that the entire population of the college took passes for the concert, which they obviously did not. There are a total of not more than three thousand students in the college and with two passes each, they could have brought not more than two friends of theirs. That amounts to a population of nine thousand. The question to ask here is how did the rest of the thousand students gain entry into the college for the concert. The answer is through buying passes sold in black like tickets, and who the blame should go to since obviously students were not involved in this transaction- the administration.  Coming back to the statement of the authorities, as the P.A to the Principal already stated that the passes for the concert meant for students, for which student pay each semester was his ‘private…’ and since he did not complete the sentence, we will complete it for him, ‘private stash’, it was obviously funneled to the black market dealers who sold the passes in front of the college, note that, at four hundred dollars apiece and sometimes at varying prices. This illegal sale of passes for the festival directly affects the fees of the students as, on the one hand the administration and the committee of Nexus benefits from this black marketeering, on the other hand those students who are not given the passes or who are not able to avail the passes still suffer the pangs of increased fee, as every semester the college takes close to three hundred rupees for college festival that is included in the fee.

When this concern was raised to the principal, she laughingly stated that this happens every year in the college festival of Nexus but when it was stated that there is a possible involvement of the administration as well, her terror knew no bounds, her face went stock still, and the next words to come out of her pale white lips were words of rebuke coming at the allegation. It is obvious to judge by this attitude of hers of getting defensive without a point when a reasonable objection is raised and putting it into the context to the manipulated and manufactured scarcity of passes for the common students based on their college identity cards that there certainly is another nexus happening between the profiteering, greedy, lustful college administration which involves the principal and the Fine Arts Association of Sri Venkateswara College, the Nexus volunteers and the rich non-college students with enough money to buy passes at any established rate.

Who would have thought that the event which celebrates the spirit of college, of Delhi University, of its intellectual acumen and inherent goodness but what instead is celebrated is the greed of certain individuals in high station, the misuse of the power they enjoy, the cunning of those people who exploit decent college-going students for mere money. And there are various examples of tickets being sold at high prices that students ought to avail free of cost. Sources indicate that a person in the English Debating Society announced among his peers that he would sell tickets at two hundred apiece and that he had more than twenty passes.

On the face of it, the event Nexus seems like an innocent and decent event for college students to attend but at the heart of it lies another dark and deceitful nexus, that of the administration and the mafia, we should say, that deuces the common students through crony capitalism or a web of corruption at the centre of which are stuck the mass of unconscious students falling prey to the Black Widow who spins the web from her venomous spit knowing full well that she is above all else. The only way to fight for your survival is by bringing out the truth and speaking of it in a loud, bold, vociferous manner for all to see and all to judge. The students have their power in unity and united they can overpower the tyranny of oppression imposed on us by the tyrant college administration. 

This is a call to arms, but your idea shall serve as your ammunition and your anger as your flag against the powers that be. The student population needs to judge the wrongdoings of the committee and the college officials, take matter into our own hands, punish those who have wronged us and reach a common collective verdict on this very serious and very crucial matter that lies before us.  We ought to indulge in it elementarily and unweave the whole conspiracy thread by thread. Only then can we claim our stature as students because after the principal and her cronies have pulled wool over our eyes, we have been reduced to mere herds of sheep that will go to slaughter at their most meager command. They think so, but, we, as students, as future intellectuals beg to differ and we will compel the administration, compel you to take a note of the unfairness that has been meted out to us and we will turn the scales to our favor. We will toil for that, we will bleed for that, we will fight for that and will bring, you, the administration down to your knees for that. Do take this matter seriously because it is not just a matter of the campus festival that comes and goes, it is a tyranny, a molestation that exists in our daily lives. We need to fight for our right till the end. Join a united struggle and a discussion on this matter so that the judgment could be taken further by and for the students.

Contact: +918506878472

The Crisis of University Education

The advent of globalization since the mid-twentieth century in India saw the rise of privatization in almost every sphere of commerce and even such resources as human intellectual capital is now being exploited as trained labor in the form of outsourcing and prospects being developed very deliberately in the field of engineering and medicine. As a parallel to that we have institutions that cater to the needs of the globalizing trend to keep up their market value such as the various engineering and medical institutes which are seen as the most prestigious colleges some among them being All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Indian Institute of Technology or commerce colleges such as the Indian Institute of Management. The complete professionalization of education in these branches has led to a never-ending demand manufactured by the corporations and reflected in the society by the manufactured aspirations of the mainstream population. This curbs the progressive forces which try to build themselves from within the society as the general consensus among the masses becomes that competition is the best self-checking and sieving mechanism that picks a few good men from a batch of rotten apples and even though the generalization is often crude and illogical, the critique of competition is never voiced in proper terms. The problem with competition lies in its very nature, being the driving force behind capitalism which again leads to globalization turning India towards a path of Western development creating the same illusions of egalitarianism through equal chances at competition turning the whole arena of varied social space divided by ethnicity, caste, race, gender and other forms of inequalities and creating an open market system at the risk of marginalizing the already oppressed classes. But the whole illusion of development is somehow preserved in the hearts and minds of the aspiring students through preservation of institutes such as those aforementioned with adequate autonomy. As we take a deeper look into this supposed autonomy, we come to realize that the autonomy that is so flagrantly proclaimed by the institutions and by which they earn their present reputation is actually only limited to the academia. Even less, as the idea of fruition in engineering courses is to get a proper placement in a private corporation along with a proper degree and the students are led to believe that the two come in combination and are inseparable from one another. If one is separated from another, for instance, if the degree is attained by a student but not an internship, all he sees before him is a market where his skills and all that he has learnt are inefficient in order for him to be productive to that market. Herein we witness the context to question the totality of study given in these forms of professional education to which completion is only attained when a proper place is accorded to each student as though he were a cog in a machine and leads to the regression of a utilitarian society. This framework is justified by the economical basis of capitalism and corporate concepts of supply and demand but what is really amusing to observe is the manipulation of culture and consent by forces of capitalism to such an extent that their sole basis of education becomes a market which only seems open to better opportunities and prospects but are constantly rigged by those with huge amassed capital. It is in this form of an analysis that we cease to see the society as stratified into various strata like that of a totem pole but divided into two classes which is the working class and the ruling class. The intellectual grounds or places of study set by the ruling classes are only to reap and harvest the intellectual labor of the working classes and in this manner even the spaces of universities are governed by the dynamics of open spaces where a direct master and slave servitude is seen if viewed properly especially the professional ones even the ones that are government regulated. This form of an education tends to alienate the student from his field of study as he is oriented not in his field of study as a virtue but in his field of study by virtue of market and hence is alienated from his labor in the same way a worker is alienated from his labor by the policy of minimum wages.

On the one hand are these universities where market forces reign supreme, and on the other hand there are Universities that teach sciences and humanities such as the University of Delhi, University of Calcutta, Jawaharlal Nehru University to name a few. But even in these universities we have a wave of opportunism that seeps in from the general economic percept of the society which has already been characterized earlier. This force creates the same hegemony over intellectual labor controlled by the ruling classes that jeopardize the space for organic growth of intellectuals. This form of hegemony is imposed not just on the students but also upon the teachers by the forces through the tool of administration that is given the sole function to control and regulate the intellectual production and oversee the development of proper products out of their machinery. For the most part, the teachers and students rely most upon the administration which again is regulated by the bureaucratic University Grants Commission which levels out systems of study and syllabus that have to be taught in the universities and the teachers have little say in it unless the hardly voice their opinion through unions. Even lesser regard in the formulation of courses and syllabi is given to students for they are seen as too imprudent to be considered for an opinion. This is how hegemony is imposed upon the students and teachers and is regulated by the administration.

Now we move on to describe what a crisis inherently is and how the crisis is different in this case and why one must apprehend all previous connotations attached to the word crisis in this specific case. When we talk about crisis in general, we talk of it with regard to a system. But here, as we have analyzed, the cause of the crisis is the very extension of system into university space. That being stated, to deal with such a crisis, one must not rely on a higher force which is the general protocol for dealing with a crisis. In this case, the solution to the crisis needs to emerge from within the working classes itself because it is their space that is being distorted by market forces and conventional dogmas. What is being stated here might seem as a superfluous extrapolation of class identity in university and to some it might even seem a futility but even as they might not agree with the class identity as mentioned above, the idea of the consumer culture and its negative impact on education ought to be intelligible to them.

Before moving on to solutions, we ought to take a deeper look into the various complex forms that this crisis has raised upon the life of an individual student from more personal perspectives. The first and most important point to tackle is the disillusionment faced by the students when they indirectly confront such a reality but never get the grasp of its actuality. Most common students do not properly know the difference between proper knowledge and commoditized knowledge but as an instinctual unconscious act can understand the difference between the two. When he begins to connect the proverbial dots and makes the conclusion that the knowledge is indeed for a specific purpose rather than for a general holistic purpose, he would immediately, in order to not just succeed but excel in his field of study would conform to that specificity. This will reduce his scope and consequently his capability to gather proper amounts of knowledge and rather than treating it as an idea of the mind to be meditated at, one would think of it as matter that is to be used not in terms of theoretical understanding and then moving to practical application but treating his acquired knowledge as a form of commodity to exploit or reap the benefits of. This would surely lead to his personal productivity but it would at the same time derail the effect of study on him. This creates a certain sense of nihilism and negations of certain forms of thought that are generally not permissible in the university space are legitimized such as desensitization towards gender and race and practice of class hierarchy in a socio-economic manner. In such a case, only due to a minor flaw in the system of education, which is just one of the aspects of the crisis, creates a huge impact on the complete secularity and sovereignty of the university.

The problems mentioned above and the System in which these problems exist is the very crises we should seek to resolve. A progressive refueling of students is needed to bring them to the necessary social consciousness required for them to fully understand their role not as a material cog but an entity capable of proper human thought and action. With the realization of this new role, they will seek to break free from their pre-existing roles in that they, as the working class would want to take ownership of the means of production, so would the students and teachers.

How Kropotkin Escaped Prison

The attempt had been settled for the next day. Further postponement would
have been dangerous. In fact, the carriage had been taken notice of by the hospital
people, and something suspicious must have reached the ears of the authorities,
as on the night before my escape I heard the patrol officer ask the sentry who
stood opposite my window, “Where are your ball cartridges?” The soldier began
to take them in a clumsy way out of his cartridge pouch, spending a couple of
minutes before he got them. The patrol officer swore at him. “Have you not been
told to-nigbt to keep four ball cartridges in the pocket of your coat?” And he stood
by the sentry till the latter put four cartridges into his pocket. “Look sharp!” he
said as he turned away.

The new arrangements concerning the signals had to be communicated to me
at once; and at two on the next day a lady — a dear relative of mine — came to
the prison, asking that a watch might be transmitted to me. Everything had to go
through the hands of the procureur; but as this was simply a watch, without a
box, it was passed along. In it was a tiny cipher note which contained the whole
plan. When I read it I was seized with terror, so daring was the feat. The lady,
herself under pursuit by the police for political reasons, would have been arrested on the spot, if any one had chanced to open the lid of the watch. But I saw her
calmly leave the prison and move slowly along the boulevard.
I came out at four, as usual, and gave my signal. I heard next the rumble of the
carriage, and a few minutes later the tones of the violin in the gray house sounded
through our yard. But I was then at the other end of the building. When I got
back to the end of my path which was nearest the gate, — about a hundred paces
from it, — the sentry was close upon my heels. “One turn more,” I thought — but
before I reached the farther end of the path the violin suddenly ceased playing.
More than a quarter of an hour passed, full of anxiety, before I understood the
cause of the interruption. Then a dozen heavily loaded carts entered the gate and
moved to the other end of the yard.
Immediately, the violinist — a good one, I must say — began a wildly exciting
mazurka from Kontsky, as if to say, “Straight on now, — this is your time!” I
moved slowly to the nearer end of the footpath, trembling at the thought that the
mazurka might stop before I reached it.
When I was there I turned round. The sentry had stopped five or six paces
behind me; he was looking the other way. “Now or never!” I remember that
thought flashing through my head. I flung off my green flannel dressing-gown
and began to run.

For many days in succession I had practiced how to get rid of that immeasurably
long and cumbrous garment. It was so long that I carried the lower part on my
left arm, as ladies carry the trains of their riding habits. Do what I might, it would
not come off in one movement. I cut the seams under the armpits, but that did not
help. Then I decided to learn to throw it off in two movements: one casting the
end from my arm, the other dropping the gown on the floor. I practiced patiently
in my room until I could do it as neatly as soldiers handle their rifles. “One, two,”
and it was on the ground.
I did not trust much to my vigor, and began to run rather slowly, to economize
my strength. But no sooner had I taken a few steps than the peasants who were
piling the wood at the other end shouted, “He runs! Stop him! Catch him!” and
they hastened to intercept me at the gate. Then I flew for my life. I thought of
nothing but running, — not even of the pit which the carts had dug out at the
gate. Run! run! full speed!
The sentry, I was told later by the friends who witnessed the scene from the
gray house, ran after me, followed by three soldiers who had been sitting on the
doorsteps. The sentry was so near to me that he felt sure of catching me. Several
times he flung his rifle forward, trying to give me a blow in the back with the
bayonet. One moment my friends in the window thought he had me. He was so
convinced that he could stop me in this way that he did not fire. But I kept my
distance, and he had to give up at the gate.

Safe out of the gate, I perceived, to my terror, that the carriage was occupied
by a civilian who wore a military cap. He sat without turning his head to me.
“Sold!” was my first thought. The comrades had written in their last letter, “Once
in the street, don’t give yourself up: there will be friends to defend you in case of
need,” and I did not want to jump into the carriage if it was occupied by an enemy.
However, as I got nearer to the carriage I noticed that the man in it had sandy
whiskers which seemed to be those of a warm friend of mine. He did not belong
to our circle, but we were personal friends, and on more than one occasion I had
learned to know his admirable, daring courage, and how his strength suddenly
became herculean when there was danger at hand. “Why should he be there?
Is it possible?” I reflected, and was going to shout out his name, when I caught
myself in good time, and instead clapped my hands, while still running, to attract
his attention. He turned his face to me — and I knew who it was.
“Jump in, quick, quick!” he shouted in a terrible voice, calling me and the
coachman all sorts of names, a revolver in his hand and ready to shoot. “Gallop!
gallop! I will kill you!” he cried to the coachman. The horse — a beautiful racing
trotter, which had been bought on purpose — started at full gallop. Scores of voices
yelling, “Hold them! Get them!” resounded behind us, my friend meanwhile
helping me to put on an elegant overcoat and an opera hat. But the real danger
was not so much in the pursuers as in a soldier who was posted at the gate of
the hospital, about opposite to the spot where the carriage had to wait. He could
have prevented my jumping into the carriage, or could have stopped the horse,
by simply rushing a few steps forward. A friend was consequently commissioned
to divert this soldier by talking. He did this most successfully. The soldier having
been employed at one time in the laboratory of the hospital, my friend gave a
scientific turn to their chat, speaking about the microscope and the wonderful
things one sees through it. Referring to a certain parasite of the human body,
he asked, “Did you ever see what a formidable tail it has?” “What, man, a tail?”
“Yes, it has; under the microscope it is as big as that.” “Don’t tell me any of your
tales!” retorted the soldier. “I know better. It was the first thing I looked at under
the microscope.” This animated discussion took place just as I ran past them and
sprang into the carriage. It sounds like fable, but it is fact.
The carriage turned sharply into a narrow lane, past the same wall of the
yard where the peasants had been piling wood, and which all of them had now
deserted in their run after me. The turn was so sharp that the carriage was nearly
upset, when I flung myself inward, dragging toward me my friend; this sudden
movement righted the carriage.
We trotted through the narrow lane and then turned to the left. Two gendarmes
were standing there at the door of a public house, and gave to the military cap
of my companion the military salute. “Hush! hush!” I said to him, for he was still terribly excited. “All goes well; the gendarmes salute us!” The coachman
thereupon turned his face toward me, and I recognized in him another friend,
who smiled with happiness.
Everywhere we saw friends, who winked to us or gave us a Godspeed as we
passed at the full trot of our beautiful horse. Then we entered the large Nevsky
Prospekt, turned into a side street, and alighted at a door, sending away the
coachman. I ran up a staircase, and at its top fell into the arms of my sister-in-law,
who had been waiting in painful anxiety. She laughed and cried at the same time,
bidding me hurry to put on another dress and to crop my conspicuous beard. Ten
minutes later my friend and I left the house and took a cab.
In the meantime, the officer of the guard at the prison and the hospital soldiers
had rushed out into the street, doubtful as to what measures they should take.
There was not a cab for a mile round, every one having been hired by my friends.
An old peasant woman from the crowd was wiser than all the lot. “Poor people,”
she said, as if talking to herself, “they are sure to come out on the Prospekt, and
there they will be caught if somebody runs along that lane, which leads straight
to the Prospekt.” She was quite right, and the officer ran to the tramway car that
stood close by, and asked the men to let them have their horses to send somebody
on horseback to intercept us. But the men obstinately refused to give up their
horses, and the officer did not use force
As to the violinist and the lady who had taken the gray house; they too rushed
out and joined the crowd with the old woman, whom they heard giving advice,
and when the crowd dispersed they went away also.
It was a fine afternoon. We drove to the islands where all the St. Petersburg
aristocracy goes on bright spring days to see the sunset, and called on the way, in
a remote street, at a barber’s shop to shave off my beard, which operation changed
me, of course, but not very much. We drove aimlessly up and down the islands,
but, having been told not to reach our night quarters till late in the evening, did
not know where to go. “What shall we do in the meantime?” I asked my friend.
He also pondered over that question. “To Donon!” he suddenly called out to the
cabman, naming one of the best St. Petersburg restaurants. “No one will ever
think of looking for you at Donon,” he calmly remarked. “They will hunt for you
everywhere else, but not there; and we shall have a dinner, and a drink too, in
honor of the success of your escape.”

CIA Dope Calypso

 ~By Allen Ginsberg

In nineteen hundred forty-nine
China was won by Mao Tse-tung
Chiang Kai Shek's army ran away
They were waiting there in Thailand yesterday

Supported by the CIA

Pushing junk down Thailand way

First they stole from the Meo Tribes
Up in the hills they started taking bribes
Then they sent their soldiers up to Shan
Collecting opium to send to The Man

Pushing junk in Bangkok yesterday
Supported by the CIA

Brought their jam on mule trains down
To Chiang Mai that's a railroad town
Sold it next to the police chief's brain
He took it to town on the choochoo train
Trafficking dope to Bangkok all day
Supported by the CIA

The policeman's name was Mr. Phao
He peddled dope grand scale and how
Chief of border customs paid
By Central Intelligence's U.S. aid

The whole operation, Newspapers say
Supported by the CIA

He got so sloppy and peddled so loose
He busted himself and cooked his own goose
Took the reward for the opium load
Seizing his own haul which same he resold

Big time pusher for a decade turned grey
Working for the CIA

Touby Lyfong he worked for the French
A big fat man liked to dine & wench
Prince of the Meos he grew black mud
Till opium flowed through the land like a flood

Communists came and chased the French away
So Touby took a job with the CIA

The whole operation fell in to chaos
Till U.S. intelligence came in to Laos

Mary Azarian/Matt Wuerker I'll tell you no lie I'm a true American
Our big pusher there was Phoumi Nosavan

All them Princes in a power play
But Phoumi was the man for the CIA

And his best friend General Vang Pao
Ran the Meo army like a sacred cow
Helicopter smugglers filled Long Cheng's bars
In Xieng Quang province on the Plain of Jars

It started in secret they were fighting yesterday
Clandestine secret army of the CIA

All through the Sixties the dope flew free
Thru Tan Son Nhut Saigon to Marshall Ky
Air America followed through
Transporting comfiture for President Thieu

All these Dealers were decades and yesterday
The Indochinese mob of the U.S. CIA

Operation Haylift Offisir Wm Colby
Saw Marshall Ky fly opium Mr. Mustard told me
Indochina desk he was Chief of Dirty Tricks
"Hitch-hiking" with dope pushers was how he got his fix

Subsidizing the traffickers to drive the Reds away
Till Colby was the head of the CIA

Marxism, Psychoanalysis and the Real

 ~By Eric Fromm

During the last 35 years, I have written many works, in which — under different aspects — I tried to explain that there are not only points where Marxism and psychoanalysis overlap but that there is also an intrinsic interdependency between the two. This means, I do not only believe that a synthesis is possible but also an existential necessity.

Freud and Marx have in common that both — the first contrary to pre-Marxist sociology, the second contrary to earlier psychology — are concerned not as much with superficial phenomena as rather with driving forces, which act in certain directions and with varying intensity, and evoke phenomena that are changing and temporary.

Psychoanalysis is the only scientific form of psychology, as Marxism is the only scientific form of sociology. Only these two systems allow us to understand the hidden driving forces behind the phenomena and to predict what happens to an individual in a certain society when, under certain conditions, the acting forces evoke phenomena that seem to be exactly the opposite of what they actually are. In the field of individual psychology as well as in sociology, non-dynamic thinking is surprised when deeply effecting, existential transformations occur, while dynamic thinking, which recognizes forces that remain invisible from the surface, is able to predict probable transformations.

This does not mean that Marx or Freud were absolute determinists. I believe, that from a philosophical perspective their position partially overlaps with that of Spinoza, who said that man would not be free if he was determined by forces acting behind his back and defining his fate. For Spinoza this thought is a central problem of ethics; for Marx it is the core of class consciousness and revolutionary action. For Freud this thought plays a major role in the conscious realization of subconscious conflicts in which his therapy based. It might be interesting to note, that already Rosa Luxemburg used the concept of subconsciousness; admittedly in the sense of blindly acting historical forces and not, as Freud did, for subconscious psychic forces.
However, Freud’s and Marx’s theories have a common element in the assumption that man is driven by forces. Realization and awareness of these will lead to liberation, even though only within the boundaries set by society and human nature.

I would like to add that Freud’s system was developed under the influence of 19. century mechanistic materialism, a philosophy that Marx had already overcome. As a result, Freud described man as an isolated mechanism driven by mere physiological needs. If we want to adjust psychoanalysis to the needs of social research, we need to break this narrow framework of mechanistic materialism and transport Freud into the framework of humanistic philosophy of history. Then, the primary focus is no longer only on man’s drives, in which his development differs the least from the animal — but about man’s relationship with the world.
Here, the most significant difference between Marx and Freud becomes apparent. For Freud, man is, as mentioned, an isolated being that needs other human beings only to satisfy certain physiological needs. That means, Freud’s concept of man is that of a bourgeois involved in the commodities market. Marx designed a very different concept of man as a complete being who needs the world and whose passions lie in man’s potential energy to achieve man’s goals.

I believe, that psychoanalysis, when modified in the described sense, can be quite useful for the explanation of different phenomena, for which Marxist philosophy has so far not fully developed an analysis. These are the forms of freely evolving human energy for the purposes and needs of a certain social structure. I consider the social character as an essential element of the social situation and at the same time as a bond between economic structure of a society and its concepts. The human energy is a productive force like all natural forces. It is, however, an energy which does not act as a pure natural force, but always in a certain social form and structure which I call — in a dynamic sense — social character.

I further believe, that one can psychoanalytically explain — and that in great detail — how the process to determine social consciousness unfolds, how social categories determine man’s consciousness, how the social filter works, and why certain elements reach the conscious and others are banned from it. This implies, that there is not only a social consciousness, but also a social subconsciousness, which covers everything that is contrary to the structure of a given society. Society is not simply satisfied when man does not do what he is not supposed to do, but society also demands that he will neither think what he is not supposed to think; because the thought is the key to the action.
Psychoanalysis thus needs a revision by means of Marxist concepts, but also Marxism needs the addition of psychological concepts, because otherwise one would discuss man, who is the major theme of the Marxist thought, only in abstract-philosophical terms.

The Problem of Alienation

Alienation is a good example for the necessity to join dynamic psychology (or humanistic psychology, which are synonyms) and Marxist thinking. Already the prophets of the Old Testament faced the problem of alienation in the context of idolatry. Here, this concept emphasizes that these idols are mere things, man’s creation. If man worships things, then he is lost and becomes himself a thing. I believe, that industrial production emphasizes this alienation even more since man creates such gigantic organizations and products that he feels weak and powerless when facing them and rather submits than that he attempts to rule them. There is no clearer and more striking symbol of alienation than nuclear arms. Not only are they made by man’s hand but are also the result of man’s ingenious thinking. Nonetheless, it is these weapons that represent the most serious threat to the existence of mankind itself.
This is precisely what Marx had in mind when he said that things and circumstances put themselves above and against man; or as the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson once said “things are in the saddle. And ride mankind”.

However, also psychological mechanisms come here into play. If we really want to understand what alienation is then we may not consider this term only in an abstract-philosophical manner but we(?) also have to see what happens to the alienated individual in an empirical and psychological manner: in what way he feels weak and powerless, what fears he endures and what kind of safety he finds in worshiping forces that become the more powerful the more helpless he feels. One can of course describe all this in philosophical terms. I am, however, afraid that there are limits to this. If we are not able to describe alienation psychologically and cannot experience what it means, then it becomes itself an alienated concept.

Psychoanalysis and Art

Psychoanalysis is very closely related to phenomena of art. But what is psychoanalysis actually concerned with? Ultimately, it aims to recognize what is really real contrary to what commonsense misleadingly considers to be real. Most of what is real is not conscious and most of what forms the content of our consciousness is mere fiction. When, for example, the analysis focuses on dreams, it deals with dream consciousness, which is all that what has been banned from waking consciousness because it did not pass the social filter. In sleep, man is both more intelligent and more irrational than when awake. We can, for example, see that many people are remarkable creative in their dreams; they dream small, great, and often very original dramas. However, the same people have, when awake, only the most profane thoughts.

This leads to the conclusion that “man knows much of what he does not know”. Social adaption makes man blind towards numerous facts, which he actually senses but of which he is not fully conscious. Furthermore, it seems apparent that man is more creative than society allows him to be. He is also more radical. Society’s interest does not lie in man’s free development. But in all past and current forms of society, the interest is simply to make man as useful and available as possible and to exploit his energy to the maximum for the purposes of the society.
Humanistic psychoanalysis, a revision of Freudian psychoanalysis, which is rather concerned with the totality of human experience than only with strivings and drives, can clearly show that in all past and current societies man has been only partially awake, and that the larger part of what he consciously thinks is fiction, given to him by society, not only as a component of unavoidable oppression but also positively as ideology.
Art has the same function. Its task is to get through to the reality. A great painter or a great dramatist is able to show us what is “really real” and not simply what is conventional, acceptable or pleasant. One could probably say that great artists have always been society’s court jesters, which were permitted to tell mankind the truth. And telling the truth means seeing the reality, not being blind. In history, art’s function was to keep mankind from slipping into total sleep and being constantly subjected to fictions of his consciousness. Great dramas and artworks always show that a reality exists, of which man is not consciously aware, which he can, however, experience — for minutes or whole hours — through the artist’s eyes.

If Hamlet had gone to a psychoanalyst, he would have said: my stepfather is a decent man and also my mother is without flaw, but still I have a bad feeling. The fact that his mother and stepfather are murderers is so inconceivable that it could not penetrate his consciousness. But only the ghost, the spirit of his father, can convince Hamlet that his suspicion is justified. Here, we face the paradox that an individual has to act in a mad way to see the entire truth, which is from the viewpoint of the so called commonsense improbable.
If Josef K. from Kafka’s “Process” had gone to a psychiatrist, he would have said: I am fine, I have a good job, lead a normal sex life. But last night, I had a dream which disturbs me. Then he would have told him what Kafka describes in the “Trial”. But what Kafka writes in his novel is Josef K’s reality. Josef K. is a normal individual who — exactly because he is “normal” — can not see the truth. And Kafka is actually such a great artist because he does show us the anatomy, the reality of this “normal” individual, who is actually very sick. The focus here is set on the pathology of normality.

What the psychoanalyst shares with the artist is that he sees every individual as the hero of the drama; whether this concerns a so called interesting individual is irrelevant. Every individual is a drama’s hero. He is an intelligent being, who was thrown into the world, and in conflicts with frightening forces and obstacles he tries to bring sense to his life. This attempt has usually a dramatic outcome. In the entire history, man has mostly been a dramatic hero. This hero is however interesting, not because he has this or that complex, but because he represents a specific human drama. The psychoanalyst is not an artist or dramatist, he is no Shakespeare, but he has to have the eyes of a dramatist to be able to conceive the reality of man. In what a great artist universally depicts, the analyst has to see what is “really real” in man.