3 ms·

> If I paint a picture of a sailing ship cresting a wave, is my art political? Yes. Modern sailing ships are a symbol of wealth inequality, and historical ones

> If I paint a picture of a sailing ship cresting a wave, is my art political? Yes. Modern sailing ships are a symbol of wealth inequality, and historical ones have plenty of other controversial associations, depending on time period. > How about a bowl of fruit? Also yes. Access to fresh fruit is a political subject. Just look at maps of food deserts. > Or a blacksmith forging horseshoes? Stick around here for long enough and you'll find plenty of people arguing over the idealization of rural life, the roles of domesticated animals, etc.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
bigmealbigmeal 4y ago
This is a semantic distortion of what most people mean when they say something is political. Yes, a painting of fruit can be discussed within a political context. But when we say a piece of art is political, we don't mean it can be seen within a political context. We mean that the piece of art is intended to be seen within a political context, or that the political context is blatantly apparent. Yes, this means whether or not something is political is subjective. That's how people use the word, just as they might describe something as angry or meaningful. When people say "everything is political", just as they say "racism is prejudice plus power", they are discarding the in-practice meaning of these words and replacing them with meanings that were invented to support a particular cause.
function_seven 4y ago
> Yes. Modern sailing ships are a symbol of wealth inequality, and historical ones have plenty of other controversial associations, depending on time period. So what statement am I making about any of these? My painting is of a ship, cresting a wave. > Also yes. Access to fresh fruit is a political subject. Just look at maps of food deserts. I didn't paint a food desert, or of anyone having or not-having access to the bowl in my painting. My painting is of fruit. In a bowl. What political statement am I making? > Stick around here for long enough and you'll find plenty of people arguing over the idealization of rural life, the roles of domesticated animals, etc. So what political statement is my painting making here? If the viewer of any of these paintings is interpreting them through their own political lens, it does not mean the art itself is political. It means the viewer is. Obviously if I paint a group of infantrymen menacing poor villagers who cower in fear, I'm making a statement. A lot of effort is required to present the menace, the fear, the looming and the cowering, the sneers and the pleas, etc. An apple sitting in a bowl presents none of those attributes. Unless you want to make appreciation of natural beauty a political issue. I won't go there.
jollybean 4y ago
"Access to fresh fruit is a political subject." There is no such thing as 'food desert' that's a made up term. Everywhere in supposed 'food deserts' there is access to 'fresh fruit'. I think you've probably proven the point a bit, there really isn't anything political about a bowl of fruit, at least not in 2022 (maybe 1700 ...). When you really mean to say is: "Radical ideologues can turn any issue into something". That does not equate to material controversy. That does say something about our twisted world, in which I think we have the ability to completely decontextualize any subject, point at some bit of 'fact' and make some kind of statement about it. So by this mundane standard, most 'art' is not political. Much of it is, and that's fine.
dahfizz 4y ago
I think what you've shown is that everything is political to you. Most people don't see a bowl of fruit and see it as a political message.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

bigmealbigmeal 4y ago

This is a semantic distortion of what most people mean when they say something is political. Yes, a painting of fruit can be discussed within a political context. But when we say a piece of art is political, we don't mean it can be seen within a political context. We mean that the piece of art is intended to be seen within a political context, or that the political context is blatantly apparent. Yes, this means whether or not something is political is subjective. That's how people use the word, just as they might describe something as angry or meaningful. When people say "everything is political", just as they say "racism is prejudice plus power", they are discarding the in-practice meaning of these words and replacing them with meanings that were invented to support a particular cause.

function_seven 4y ago

> Yes. Modern sailing ships are a symbol of wealth inequality, and historical ones have plenty of other controversial associations, depending on time period. So what statement am I making about any of these? My painting is of a ship, cresting a wave. > Also yes. Access to fresh fruit is a political subject. Just look at maps of food deserts. I didn't paint a food desert, or of anyone having or not-having access to the bowl in my painting. My painting is of fruit. In a bowl. What political statement am I making? > Stick around here for long enough and you'll find plenty of people arguing over the idealization of rural life, the roles of domesticated animals, etc. So what political statement is my painting making here? If the viewer of any of these paintings is interpreting them through their own political lens, it does not mean the art itself is political. It means the viewer is. Obviously if I paint a group of infantrymen menacing poor villagers who cower in fear, I'm making a statement. A lot of effort is required to present the menace, the fear, the looming and the cowering, the sneers and the pleas, etc. An apple sitting in a bowl presents none of those attributes. Unless you want to make appreciation of natural beauty a political issue. I won't go there.

jollybean 4y ago

"Access to fresh fruit is a political subject." There is no such thing as 'food desert' that's a made up term. Everywhere in supposed 'food deserts' there is access to 'fresh fruit'. I think you've probably proven the point a bit, there really isn't anything political about a bowl of fruit, at least not in 2022 (maybe 1700 ...). When you really mean to say is: "Radical ideologues can turn any issue into something". That does not equate to material controversy. That does say something about our twisted world, in which I think we have the ability to completely decontextualize any subject, point at some bit of 'fact' and make some kind of statement about it. So by this mundane standard, most 'art' is not political. Much of it is, and that's fine.

dahfizz 4y ago

I think what you've shown is that everything is political to you. Most people don't see a bowl of fruit and see it as a political message.