4 ms·

>Such an art doesn't exist of course... ... what? Art absolutely can be apolitical. A piece of music can exist without political meaning; a beautiful oil paint

>Such an art doesn't exist of course... ... what? Art absolutely can be apolitical. A piece of music can exist without political meaning; a beautiful oil painting of a garden likely doesn't have politics attached to it. I could go on and on. Some art has something to say while other art exists simply for the sake of existing.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Only if you have a narrow modern definition of politics based on eg political parties and elections. Just as a very simple explanation with this example: a painting of a garden has politics embedded within it if not everyone has recreational access to that garden. A painting of a garden by a member of the family that owns it is just a painting, "apolitical", where a painting of it by someone who shouldn't be in it could be transgressive, or even threatening. These things are small and may seem like a stretch but this is politics. It's kind of like that joke "gamers think there are two genders: male and political." What we think of as political or not is itself an embedding of politics, not a neutral external fact derived from the universe.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jjulius 4y ago
  My definition of politics extends beyond governments, political parties, yadda yadda. I also think that your response supports my assertion that your absolute - that apolitical art does not exist - is false. >... a painting of a garden has politics embedded within it IF not everyone has recreational access to that garden. And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden? >A painting of a garden by a member of the family that owns it is just a painting, "apolitical"... I am unsure how to take this sentence as anything but you agreeing that that piece of art is, in point of fact, apolitical. Please point me in the right direction if I'm off base here.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    I put apolitical in quotes there for a reason. Likely to be perceived as neutral, not politically active or making any particular statement. But that perception isn't from nowhere and doesn't mean it's not political. You can refute any specific thing I say about a garden or whatever. But there will always be things. Everyone has recreational access, but does everyone have recreational time? Can everyone get the paints needed to recreate it? etc. Something is apolitical from a person's perspective when it embeds their political assumptions, basically. It's not necessarily wrong to describe something that way, but that assertion needs to carry with it a context within which it is neutral. Whether a specific viewer will receive it as political is a fact about the observer, not the piece of art.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      > Whether a specific viewer will receive it as political is a fact about the observer, not the piece of art. That’s your key point. If someone wants to see politics in a work of art for which the artist imbued no politics of his own, they will find it. If someone wants to take offense to a statement, they will, regardless of speakers intent. And so this really is a pointless discussion when you are saying that an elephant can be interpreted as a mouse, if the observer perceives it as such.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        Thanks! This puts it a lot more succinctly/clearly than I could.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    > And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden? There is an artist's intent, and then there is interpretation of the work. You can't prevent someone from applying a political lens for interpretation -- oh, look, those people are out of place, etc. Sometimes this can shed light on the work, other times obscures it. Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony was explicitly political and changed the dedication as political events unfolded. Later, Beethoven wrote the "Harp" quartet in a cellar in Vienna while it was being bombarded by Napoleon's army. The quartet is the last thing you'd imagine it to be under the circumstances of its composition, and maybe that was the point, in which case you can say there is perhaps an inverted political intent at play here, too. The political context adds a dimension to how I think of that quartet. (I can't resist mentioning Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" -- not highly regarded and very corny and probably more on the order of what you expect from "political" art). Now give me a political interpretation of Beethoven's C# minor quartet. I'd maybe have to take Taruskin's approach of considering it the work of not a single individual, but what was required from the whole society for such a work to have been produced. Everything from fiddle makers to music instruction to how arts were funded. At that point, I don't think the mode of analysis any longer has anything to do with the C# minor quartet. I strongly endorse the idea of autonomous expression in art; when there is reason to believe the artist's intent was political, I'll follow along; when not, a political interpretation is useful only insofar as it sheds light on the work.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

Only if you have a narrow modern definition of politics based on eg political parties and elections. Just as a very simple explanation with this example: a painting of a garden has politics embedded within it if not everyone has recreational access to that garden. A painting of a garden by a member of the family that owns it is just a painting, "apolitical", where a painting of it by someone who shouldn't be in it could be transgressive, or even threatening. These things are small and may seem like a stretch but this is politics. It's kind of like that joke "gamers think there are two genders: male and political." What we think of as political or not is itself an embedding of politics, not a neutral external fact derived from the universe.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jjulius 4y ago
My definition of politics extends beyond governments, political parties, yadda yadda. I also think that your response supports my assertion that your absolute - that apolitical art does not exist - is false. >... a painting of a garden has politics embedded within it IF not everyone has recreational access to that garden. And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden? >A painting of a garden by a member of the family that owns it is just a painting, "apolitical"... I am unsure how to take this sentence as anything but you agreeing that that piece of art is, in point of fact, apolitical. Please point me in the right direction if I'm off base here.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I put apolitical in quotes there for a reason. Likely to be perceived as neutral, not politically active or making any particular statement. But that perception isn't from nowhere and doesn't mean it's not political. You can refute any specific thing I say about a garden or whatever. But there will always be things. Everyone has recreational access, but does everyone have recreational time? Can everyone get the paints needed to recreate it? etc. Something is apolitical from a person's perspective when it embeds their political assumptions, basically. It's not necessarily wrong to describe something that way, but that assertion needs to carry with it a context within which it is neutral. Whether a specific viewer will receive it as political is a fact about the observer, not the piece of art.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > Whether a specific viewer will receive it as political is a fact about the observer, not the piece of art. That’s your key point. If someone wants to see politics in a work of art for which the artist imbued no politics of his own, they will find it. If someone wants to take offense to a statement, they will, regardless of speakers intent. And so this really is a pointless discussion when you are saying that an elephant can be interpreted as a mouse, if the observer perceives it as such.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      Thanks! This puts it a lot more succinctly/clearly than I could.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- nescioquid 4y ago
  > And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden? There is an artist's intent, and then there is interpretation of the work. You can't prevent someone from applying a political lens for interpretation -- oh, look, those people are out of place, etc. Sometimes this can shed light on the work, other times obscures it. Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony was explicitly political and changed the dedication as political events unfolded. Later, Beethoven wrote the "Harp" quartet in a cellar in Vienna while it was being bombarded by Napoleon's army. The quartet is the last thing you'd imagine it to be under the circumstances of its composition, and maybe that was the point, in which case you can say there is perhaps an inverted political intent at play here, too. The political context adds a dimension to how I think of that quartet. (I can't resist mentioning Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" -- not highly regarded and very corny and probably more on the order of what you expect from "political" art). Now give me a political interpretation of Beethoven's C# minor quartet. I'd maybe have to take Taruskin's approach of considering it the work of not a single individual, but what was required from the whole society for such a work to have been produced. Everything from fiddle makers to music instruction to how arts were funded. At that point, I don't think the mode of analysis any longer has anything to do with the C# minor quartet. I strongly endorse the idea of autonomous expression in art; when there is reason to believe the artist's intent was political, I'll follow along; when not, a political interpretation is useful only insofar as it sheds light on the work.