7 ms·

In summary, Orwell finds that his books are most full of life when he writes mainly with: > (iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest

by jal278 12y ago

In summary, Orwell finds that his books are most full of life when he writes mainly with: > (iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

FreakLegion 12y ago
> The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude. Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.' Sure, most books have a point of view, but that doesn't make them political in any meaningful sense. Or alternatively, if you broaden the meaning of 'politics' to include all the things, then you've diluted it to the point that it ceases to be an effective critical or creative tool. Edit: All those 'you's are the indefinite 'you.' I realize you're quoting.
- e12e 12y ago
  From The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1906) [devil]: > POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. On a more serious note, I tend to agree with Orwell. Works of art (prose, paintings, photographs) are largely defined not by what they contain, but what they leave out. Consciously or unconsciously they represent a form of distilled reality that will inherently expose how the creator sees the world (or perhaps rather: how the author observes the world; what he notices). How is this political? Any rational person decides what should be done based on what is -- if you perceive reality to be different, you will come up with different explanations for why things are the way they are, and more importantly how and why they should change. Do you look at images from the World Soccer Championship in Brazil and see a merry sport festival? Or do you see thousands on the streets demonstrating for the right to a decent life? I agree that not all art should be (or is) intentionally or overtly political, but I also think that it is right to claim that all art, on some level is political, in the sense that they impart the artists view (and connected feelings) of the world to those that experience the work. At any rate, I find it hard to disagree with the the concrete quote you picked: Isn't discussing how art and politics interact an aspect of politics? [devil]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Dictionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Dictionary [edit: On a somewhat related note (by virtue of dealing with writing, and being written by Orwell) see also: George Orwell: "Politics and the English Language" https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm ]
- Hasu 12y ago
  >Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.' He gives his definition of politics, which is not just 'point of view' as you claim: "Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after." You can argue that not all books try to push the world in one direction or another, or you can agree with Orwell that they do, but your objection doesn't make sense. Yes, people generally disagree about the definition of the word 'political', but Orwell has defined it here for you, so you're supposed to use his definition when evaluating his claim. I disagree with you. I think Orwell is correct, and I think that his use of the word 'political' doesn't dilute it at all, but rather, cuts directly to the heart of what 'politics' is all about.

by jal278 12y ago

FreakLegion 12y ago

> The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude. Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.' Sure, most books have a point of view, but that doesn't make them political in any meaningful sense. Or alternatively, if you broaden the meaning of 'politics' to include all the things, then you've diluted it to the point that it ceases to be an effective critical or creative tool. Edit: All those 'you's are the indefinite 'you.' I realize you're quoting.

e12e 12y ago
From The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1906) [devil]: > POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. On a more serious note, I tend to agree with Orwell. Works of art (prose, paintings, photographs) are largely defined not by what they contain, but what they leave out. Consciously or unconsciously they represent a form of distilled reality that will inherently expose how the creator sees the world (or perhaps rather: how the author observes the world; what he notices). How is this political? Any rational person decides what should be done based on what is -- if you perceive reality to be different, you will come up with different explanations for why things are the way they are, and more importantly how and why they should change. Do you look at images from the World Soccer Championship in Brazil and see a merry sport festival? Or do you see thousands on the streets demonstrating for the right to a decent life? I agree that not all art should be (or is) intentionally or overtly political, but I also think that it is right to claim that all art, on some level is political, in the sense that they impart the artists view (and connected feelings) of the world to those that experience the work. At any rate, I find it hard to disagree with the the concrete quote you picked: Isn't discussing how art and politics interact an aspect of politics? [devil]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Dictionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Dictionary [edit: On a somewhat related note (by virtue of dealing with writing, and being written by Orwell) see also: George Orwell: "Politics and the English Language" https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm ]
Hasu 12y ago
>Or people just disagree about the definition of 'politics.' Once you get to a point where "no book is genuinely free from political bias," you've basically reduced 'politics' to 'point of view.' He gives his definition of politics, which is not just 'point of view' as you claim: "Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after." You can argue that not all books try to push the world in one direction or another, or you can agree with Orwell that they do, but your objection doesn't make sense. Yes, people generally disagree about the definition of the word 'political', but Orwell has defined it here for you, so you're supposed to use his definition when evaluating his claim. I disagree with you. I think Orwell is correct, and I think that his use of the word 'political' doesn't dilute it at all, but rather, cuts directly to the heart of what 'politics' is all about.