2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

I worked hard to try to find something to criticize in this essay, but I struggled to find anything with which I disagreed very much. I think that despite the early year in which the essay was written, there is still a great deal of relevance, and even urgent importance, in the issues Brecht presents to today's world. I appreciate the attention Brecht pays to what he calls the "possessing class" and "property relations," since I believe that private control of resources is perhaps the most sinister and dominating problem to our world today, and at the heart of such horrifying problems as poverty and economic inequality. I also appreciated what Brecht said about the truth as something "belligerent," something that "strikes out not only against falsehood, but against particular people who spread falsehood." Perhaps "the truth" is not self-contained -- it is explosive and catalystic, causing change inevitably in those to whom it is directed.

However, as I read the essay, I kept running up against the question, "Isn't 'truth' a more slippery, ambiguous, and ever-changing item than Brecht is making it out to be, even when one "arrives" at it? Brecht suggest that "truth" can be arrived at, when perhaps it is more of a process of arrival, a collaboration of different viewpoints, and not an actual arrival. Further, something that is strongly held to be "true" by one group of people may be considered "untrue" by another group. For example, in general Republicans believe that a limited government is the best way to serve the American people, and Democrats believe, with equal conviction and "courage," that bigger government is the better idea. Perhaps the belief in a certain "truth" can be powerful enough to make that "truth" "true" to oneself, while that same "truth" is equally "untrue" to another person or another group. As strange as it may sound, perhaps what matters more than "truth" is how strongly one person, or a group of people, believes in a truth: one can make something "true" or "untrue" to oneself based on how strongly one believes in that truth. But perhaps something either IS or ISN'T "true," and there are no shades of gray when it comes to "truth."

Also, is "truth" always the most desirable outcome, always at the top of a hierarchy of values? What if it would do more good for someone, or for a group of people, or a for a country of people, to tell a lie? What if it would save lives to tell a lie? Should one still tell (or write) the truth? For example, if in World War II one were hiding Jewish people in one's attic and a Nazi came to the door asking if one were hiding Jews, should one tell that Nazi the truth? Also, I appreciated what Brecht said about using "cunning" to spread the truth. Some people have trouble handling "the truth" when it's pointed at them head-on. I found it interesting and ironic to think that perhaps one must play a clever role, use verbal or intellectual devices, or go even to the point of "lying" cunningly, in order to disseminate the "truth."

As Rowan has already stated, this article’s points are fairly timeless. It seems just as relevant to today’s events, particularly the upcoming election, as it does to the events of World War II and prior. I agree with the five difficulties presented and how they must be overcome together in order to proceed forward; yet I can’t quite tell if Brecht is trying to encourage every one of us to be courageous, keen and cunning or if he is suggesting these steps merely for those of us who choose to combat the lies and ignorance. He mentions those who do not know the truth, so I suppose they become ruled out. Yet there are others who can recognize the truth but may not have the skill, judgment or cunning to successfully spread it. And surely there are plenty of people who are quite aware of the truth but neglect to tell it.

One of the early points in the article reads, “Naturally, in the struggle with falsehood we must write the truth, and this truth must not be a lofty and ambiguous generality.� But I start to wonder, who is “we�? Is “we� a small group of writers? Is “we� the weak? Or is “we� the powerful? Is “we� those of us who wish to tell the truth? Dependent on who this “we� is, writing the truth may not come so naturally. Although it is what should be done, it clearly isn’t always what happens. So I start to wonder, how many people actually want to write the truth.

Once someone decides they want to be a writer of the truth, Brecht requires them to follow a lot of specific rules to effectively carry out the task. It seems to become a near impossible feat. After one decides they wish to write the truth they must go on to recognize it. Then they must obtain the truth. But how can we successfully obtain the truth? Brecht suggests knowledge can be acquired from books and practical instruction, but is this really reliable? There are countless inaccuracies in textbooks, the media and even in what is taught. How can we trust on anything we learn to be accurate? Brecht goes on to say that the audience with whom we share the truth is constantly changing. How then can we really know for certain everyone who needs to read the truth? And if one makes it this far, they must also have cunning in spreading the truth. The probability of one successfully passing through every one of these steps seems very slim. There are probably few people who can manage this heavy task of writing the truth. This makes me feel very pessimistic about the amount of written “truth� that actually exists.

The relevance of Bertolt Brecht’s essay, Writing the Truth - Five Difficulties, is the same for visual communicators as it is for writers. I think his questions are direct and his answers accurate for helping any communicator get to the “truth�. Brecht has given me reason to think about the meaning and impact of what I put into this world as an artist.
Even though this essay is dated and I found the information somewhat obvious, it tells me people throughout history have and will always be searching for the truth and fighting to make change happen.

In today’s world we have the Internet, the ultimate truth talker. I think about Wikipedia where the truth changes depending on who is interjecting, thus disturbing the idea of truth itself. I almost think truth is something of a physical fact that one has to experience to get. We hear so much through politicians and activists that it is up to the individual to accept what they want as truth, leaving us individualized and passive. One example is the creationism verses evolution debate happening in schools where the truth of science is battling with the truth of faith. Who makes the final decision on that? I guess this is where one needs the courage to face the confusion of society and expose the falsehoods that lead to oppression of the people.

I think truth is imbedded in people’s ability to see and know the world around them and I think Brecht is saying that same thing. He is telling the visionaries to look harder and work diligently to better the world for mankind. Overall this essay has made me think about what truth is even in a country where we can speak the truth all the time, there is still manipulation and oppression of the masses. I don’t know if the truth can set us free but then freedom is another thing altogether.

Section 4, “The Judgement to Select Those in Whose Hands the Truth Will Be Effective�, was the most interesting to me. If we can recognize the truth and be courageous enough dedicate our lives to its espousal, is the execution of its communication in our visual work the central focus? Or is it just as difficult to have the “judgement� choose the “correct� audience? If we make work that is expensive, or simply that costs money at all, does that shift our audience from the people to whom we are supposed to be speaking (those who suffer most from the “barbarous conditions�)? If our work is considered elitist and academic, it will not necessarily be accessible to those who need it most, those who have the greatest interest in the change we are trying to create.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, especially with the RNC in town, and with so many friends involved in protesting. When one is protesting, to whom is he/she speaking? Does protest, no matter how non-violent and void of intimidation, lead to communication of the “truth?� Is the target audience the Republicans, the general public, or the disenfranchised? Is protest courageous? Effective? Or are there failures in “judgement� and “cunning?� Sometimes I feel as though this sort of activity does nothing but encourage a lack of deliberate empathy, and therefore a breakdown in communication.

This is where the truth becomes less clear and sometimes less true, in a way. As Jennifer and Rowan were saying, perspective dictates personal truth, and if we as individuals are supposed to accept what we want as truth, we cannot come together as a group of people to make change. Instead, we remain isolated, and from that point on choose to be active or passive on our own little islands of truth. I believe that the most important daily struggle is that of recognizing as many alternative personal truths as possible; only through empathizing with others and attempting to understand other perspectives does one arrive at the ultimate collective truth.

I like the questions Mel asks, Are there failures in judgement and in being cunning? of course their is always failure in attempts at communicating and directing truth to the ones who need it. I also agree with her take on the "correct audience" for as an artist we can choose who we put our work in front of and weather it is for the love and/or for the profit. There needs to be both. A fine combination of all the 5 difficulties, but that combination is again unique to each persons needs.

The first point that sprang to mind while reading Brecht was the relevancy of it today, particularly to us as artists, as potential ‘truth-tellers’. I could not help but draw parallels with our current society. In his summary he states, “We must say that torture is used in order to preserve property relations.� Read power for property relations, and he could be speaking about the present in the US. His situation was doubtless more dire than we can imagine, in Europe in 1935 with World War II brewing, but the lessons he gives are still pertinent to us as artists, and people living in America.

As some have already mentioned, as I read the essay I was acutely aware of the trouble of the knowing what is “truth�. It is often arbitrary, particularly when concerning politics. One person’s truth is another’s absolute lie. Brecht is clearly coming from a Marxist perspective, and his truth is different then, say, Reagan’s. How is one to know that the truth they are promoting is not actually a lie? Don’t these same rules that Brecht lays out apply to propagandists as well, as long as they believe they’re own propaganda to be true? Somewhat ironically for Brecht, there were many effective artists employing his techniques to fight the communist regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Vaclav Havel’s writings in the Czech Republic comes to mind. But while the term ‘truth’ is problematic, I cannot think of a suitable surrogate, and Brecht’s ideas are important enough to overlook this and study his points.

That being said, I do think it’s important for artists to be aware of how they affect the world around them, to think about how they can work for a better world (another arbitrary term), and do their best to seek truth.

I also thought that much of the essay still rings true with contemporary political practice. In the paragraph where Bertolt writes, “It takes little courage to mutter a general complaint.� I think immediately of modern protests. As Fox News recently demonstrated in their footage of the Democratic Convention, the protesting truth-tellers quickly spiraled into a narcissistic screaming match. They alienated the very audience they should try to reach, only conveying the grand statement, “F**k Fox!� Apparently, they lack “the skill to manipulate the truth as a weapon� and “the judgment to select those whose hands the truth will be effective.�
On a similar note, take the sentence “They are not against the property relations which engender barbarism; they are only against barbarism itself.� One could easily substitute the words “property relations� with foreign policy and “barbarism� with terrorism. Also Bertolt’s statement that monopoly can only be protected by open violence is amazing since we’re currently experiencing the open violence he foresaw.
Conversely, I disagree with the statement, “It takes courage to say that the good were defeated not because they were good, but because they were weak.� I don’t know what exactly “good� entails for Bertolt, and it’s quite a relative term. If Bertolt considers that a true statement, “the innocent were defeated not because they were innocent, but because they didn’t know any better� could also be called a true statement. I don’t like the use of such dualist terms. Radicalism creates radicalism.

From Bretch’s list of difficulties in writing I felt a parallel to our contemporary era seventy three years later. Despite a difference in language, I thought that the words barbarism or fascists could easily be replaced with terrorism, or insurgents, fundamentalists, and terrorists. And after our nation’s “definition� and embrace of what exactly is and is not torture, in some situations those same words can be replaced with Our current administration, servants, heroes, and allies of our nation. Brecht’s five difficulties of writing the truth challenged the media of the pre-WWII era as well as our own post-911 era, a fact that makes me distrustful at times of today’s news from radio, television, and the internet.
Brecht’s work reminded me of how I work every day on my paintings and sculptures, and think about what I am trying to communicate through them. I think of all the complex issues we face in our contemporary time and how I should be writing all these thoughts down, but don’t. And why?, Because I tell myself I lack the discipline, and I don’t have time to research every subject I want to reference or communicate about through the work, in addition to actually making the work. I address all issues but fear.
I am aware that my concept of the world is made up of my experience, education, culture and all those little sound bites, reports and writings. And because of that, I don’t feel I am an expert on many of the subjects of our contemporary era that I try to refer to in my artistic practice. I feel that most likely Brecht would have said that I lack the courage to write the truth because I don’t completely know the truth, but I feel it is impossible for us to ever completely know the truth anyway. I did appreciate the value of his lesson to writers, as well as artists, in how we should know what we are saying; know how to say it, how we should consider our potential audiences, and how we should address those audiences.

I agree with the other posts in that Bertolt Brecht’s essay on truth is just as pertinent to our times as it was to the mid twentieth century. There are many of the same power struggles. Although the ways in which information is disseminated has changed. Today the general public is spoon fed information via television yet we also have the possibility of a more dynamic means of communication with the prevalence of interactive media.

I resonated with the idea that “The truth must be spoken with a view to the results it will produce in a sphere of action). In respect to applying these thoughts to my own visual art practice, I often wonder if the truth is best served by traditional modes of visual art or is journalism, graphic design and film a better vehicle. When making work about activist ideas what is it actually doing? Who is it reaching? The general public does not engage art like it once did. Painting used to fuel revolutions, now we’re lucky if a film with a message can cut through the clutter of the saturated media landscape. There are so many entities trying to communicate with the public. Most notably makers of consumer culture. A handful of conglomerates control the media so how can we trust that our news is unbiased and true. It seems one of the only last strong holds of free information exchange is the internet. This format has it’s problems as well. As Jennifer pointed out, it is very democratic but along with that freedom comes inaccuracy.

Brecht talked about how truth should address the masses. That it should speak to the people that are most affected by the oppressive conditions. I agree with these ideas but it makes me question the nature of the art world. In general, high art is directed at the cultural elite. On one hand they are in a position to influence the direction of our culture but on the other hand most people that are wealthy enough to be well educated and to afford buying artworks don’t have as much at stake. I’m left with the question, if I am indeed interested in talking about social issues with my artwork, how can I do it in a way that speaks to both the art world as well as the general public in a way that is engaging for both?

"How come no one told me, the loneliest people are the ones who always spoke the truth?" Sung with soft and milky voices reminiscent of old Simon and Garfunkel by two Scandinavian soft and milky young men. I agree so much with that statement, especially in current times when nothing and no one seems to be facing the cold hard truth. An atmosphere filled with a harsh haze of digital sound bytes sponsored by faceless conglomerates flying private jets to attend meetings atop cold hard steel skyscrapers. Yeah, to tell the truth in this thick cloud is to shine a bright light too damn bright for most. Its easier to ignore and stay ignorant to it. I'm sure as hell guilty of it. The thought of cutting through all the bullshit makes my blood boil in the right way, but at the same time scares the shit out of me.
That truth will instantly turn most people away and send some running for their lives. But I will say that the truth-teller can go to sleep that night knowing that he or she took an ice-pick to the seas of frozen evil. The best books and films and works of art are those that light a fire under your chair. They cut through and hit you when you didn't expect it, finding their way into your eyes or ears or mouth or heart. Truth is timeless. Sincerity is timeless. Truth is the most archival structure to store your creative manifestations for the infinite trip ahead. and it takes all the courage in world.
Its really hard to fight the truth, its like making fun of a ten-year-old child speaking their mind. That is one of, if not the most important, roles of the artist. To speak the truth for those not strong enough to speak it themselves.
A work of art done with absolute sincerity can resonate with people thousands of years from now.
So in order to support the truth-tellers, we need to build a community to take those in who instantly feel so alone.

I agree with the overall idea Brecht wrote about the five difficulties in writing the truth. Courage, keen recognition, skill to manipulate, judgment to select people to pass along and cunningness to spread among the many, are all important in order to express anything to the world. I appreciate his effort to advice us through this writing. His points are general enough that they could also apply to our time of age. But on the other hand this generalization is something that also bothered me throughout the text, particularly the use of word “the truth.�
Every time he mentioned “the truth� I could not stop asking myself “what truth is he referring to?� Because I believe that “truth� can sometimes be ambiguous. (Almost sounds ironical, but the way we use the word “truth� does not necessarily carry the same meaning among others.) Truth cannot be true if there is any possibility of opposition. It can be very difficult to define once it is attached to a context. War, for example, is a very complex context that can drive the meaning of “the truth� once attached together. Brecht himself wrote about generalization when he mentioned about “the� Germans, how it can be foolish and dangerous to “express himself in lofty, general, and imprecise terms� and yet he uses the word “the truth� in the similar manner.
“The truth“ is a word that appears to be immovable, so one can fight with determination against those who are “not true� (also mentioned as “barbarian� or “evil conditions�, which are also ambiguous). But the thing we tend to forget is that those “non-truthful� people are also most probably be fighting for their own version of “the truth�. Different people who combined different context to their “truth� could read the same advice from Brecht and fight each other for “the truth�.
Single idea may contain multiple of truths and non-truths, and I don't see a point in fighting each other for “the truth� that not every one can share in common.

"One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible. Marx compared it to a vampire, and one of the salient points of comparison now appears to be that vampires always rise up again after being stabbed to death. Even Mao's attempt, in the Cultural Revolution, to wipe out the traces of capitalism, ended up in its triumphant return." So begins Slavoj Zizek's Resistance Is Surrender, a short but pointed reprimand toward those who advocate total disengagement from the existing structures of power. (If you're interested in politics/theory, I highly recommend it.) Would Brecht recognize a world in which prominent theorists of the left attribute invincible power to the very system they oppose? Many aspects of Brecht's 'Five Difficulties' can be applied to contemporary culture. However, the overwhelming dominance of global capitalism, the proliferation of information technology, and massive population growth have created a cultural climate in which the idea of empowerment of the masses through dissemination of truth seems a bit simplistic. The quantity, diversity, and mutability of digital media has changed the way we understand and interpret information. The business of 'spreading the truth among the many' has become much more complicated. Making information accessible to masses of people is easier than ever, while making it credible or influential is harder than ever before.

On my first reading of Five Difficulties, I was struck by its relevance – Brecht's descriptions and critiques of capitalism's oppressive and violent agenda remain devastatingly accurate. He shrewdly identifies fascism as the most pure and extreme form of capitalism rather than an opposing force (something that few people dare to assert these days, thanks to legions of free-market apologists, terrorism-induced nationalists, and sedated liberals.) However, as the United States gradually transitions away from the veiled violence of capitalism toward the overt violence of fascism, the relationship becomes impossible to ignore. Of course, military violence has always been the US tactic for maintaining its dominance in global 'property relations;' I am referring to the ways that new legislations are increasingly being used to legitimate open violence against domestic dissenters as well. (For instance, the arrest of numerous journalists and media activists during the RNC protests emphasized Brecht's warning: "To displease the possessors means to become one of the dispossessed.")

Excuse my political ranting, but after seeing some of the most ridiculous wing-nut conspiracy theories of the decade come true and personally affect my friends at the RNC fiasco last week, I can't help it (tapped phones, longtime buddies turning out to be FBI informants, houses raided, five-year-old kid in handcuffs, etc.) For real. Ahem.

Politics aside, each of Brecht's five difficulties are relevant to a socially engaged writer or artist. By breaking down the system of seeking and disseminating truth into these five stages, he does an excellent job of illuminating writer's role as a communicator: not an isolated maker of sentences, but someone whose responsibility includes placing those sentences in a social context – reaching out to readers. In this sense, Brecht's five difficulties can be applied to any creative endeavor. Also, he is ahead of his time in recognizing the complicated interrelationships of power structures, social bodies, and historical events that compose something worthy of being called "truth."