3 ms·
The problem with your argument(s) is that you remove an important variable from the equation, which is context. Art + context = political. In a way, many people
by fzeroracer 4y ago
The problem with your argument(s) is that you remove an important variable from the equation, which is context. Art + context = political. In a way, many people are falsely applying the whole 'death of the author' thing but instead to pieces of artwork.
For example, it would be incredibly hard to argue that the work of HP Lovecraft wasn't intensely political. Much of his work was strongly informed by his racist beliefs (even for the era), which waned as he grew older. Few people would argue that showing the horror of what happened to Emmett Till is political nowadays, but at the time it was a heavily politicized thing as the article mentions.
If you think something isn't political, then you might be lacking the context that makes it political. Some people believe including any sort of gay relationships in a tv series is political, others don't. How do you separate who is right, other than by your own judgment based on your own personal political compass?
- Beltalowda 4y agoIt reminds me a bit of these old paintings which are filled with allegories and symbolism that many people today just completely miss; e.g. a lute is a symbol of female fertility and stuff like that. I'd have to re-read Lovecraft's works, but I never got this impression myself when reading it. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, just underscoring that the context of the reader also matters as you say. This also applies in the other direction: you might read "meaning" into some piece of literature or art that the original creator(s) never intended.