[...] Consequently, there is but one possible realistic film: the one that is constantly shown us by an invisible camera on the world's screen. The only realistic artist, then, is God, if he exists. All other artists are, ipso facto, unfaithful to reality.
[...] As a result, the artists who reject bourgeois society and its formal art, who insist on speaking of reality, and reality alone, are caught in a painful dilemma. They must be realistic and yet cannot be. They want to make their art subservient to reality, and reality cannot be described without effecting a choice that makes it subservient to the originality of an art. [...]
basically saying there is no such thing as true realism
[...] Consequently, there is but one possible realistic film: the one that is constantly shown us by an invisible camera on the world's screen. The only realistic artist, then, is God, if he exists. All other artists are, ipso facto, unfaithful to reality.
[...] As a result, the artists who reject bourgeois society and its formal art, who insist on speaking of reality, and reality alone, are caught in a painful dilemma. They must be realistic and yet cannot be. They want to make their art subservient to reality, and reality cannot be described without effecting a choice that makes it subservient to the originality of an art. [...]
basically saying there is no such thing as true realism
[...] there is no possible evolution in a totalitarian society. Terror does not evolve except toward a worse terror, the scaffold does not become any more liberal, the gallows are not tolerant. Nowhere in the world has there been a party or a man with absolute power who did not use it absolutely.
The first thing to define totalitarian society, whether of the Right or of the Left, is the single party, and the single party has no reason to destroy itself. This is why the only society capable of evolution and liberalization, the only one that deserves both our critical and our active support is the society that involves a plurality of parties as a part of its structure. It alone allows one to denounce, hence to correct, injustice and crime. [...]
in an essay denouncing Kadar's Hungary (written 1957, so soon after the revolution)
[...] there is no possible evolution in a totalitarian society. Terror does not evolve except toward a worse terror, the scaffold does not become any more liberal, the gallows are not tolerant. Nowhere in the world has there been a party or a man with absolute power who did not use it absolutely.
The first thing to define totalitarian society, whether of the Right or of the Left, is the single party, and the single party has no reason to destroy itself. This is why the only society capable of evolution and liberalization, the only one that deserves both our critical and our active support is the society that involves a plurality of parties as a part of its structure. It alone allows one to denounce, hence to correct, injustice and crime. [...]
in an essay denouncing Kadar's Hungary (written 1957, so soon after the revolution)
a summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians
there is room for nothing in Stalinist culture except for edifying sermons, colorless life, and the catechism of propaganda
there is room for nothing in Stalinist culture except for edifying sermons, colorless life, and the catechism of propaganda
(verb) build / (verb) establish / (verb) to instruct and improve especially in moral and religious knowledge; uplift / (verb) enlighten inform
there is room for nothing in Stalinist culture except for edifying sermons, colorless life, and the catechism of propaganda
there is room for nothing in Stalinist culture except for edifying sermons, colorless life, and the catechism of propaganda