/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4194071
Well no, absolutely not. I'd even say what is artistic about political art is never the political part. The political activism bolted on top is usually the stupid part about it that usually just irritates. Over time however the political activism that was weaved into the art fades away and it becomes easier to see it for what it is. It takes time though.

Example: Socialist art. So art was clearly instrumentalized during times of socialism to present the world the beautiful human creativity that the system spawns, how in line even every artist is with the ideals of the regime and to directly illustrate the foundational ideas of socialism. So what they wanted in all art is: High technical standards, no criticism of anything but the West and some illustration of socialist ideals. So you'd see perfectly formed humans with hammers and sickles looking proudly and determined into a bright future, stuff like that.

Now looking back at that art it doesn't mean what it was supposed to mean. We don't see all that obvious political stuff, it has become meaningless. Just like when we look at old portraits of kings and all their opulence, we don't really see what was originally intended. We don't think "Man Henry VIII sure is an amazing man with all this wealth he owns", we see right through it and see a man that tries to present himself as a perfect, masculine leader that is appointed by god himself. We see the insecurities, the greed, the power hunger, but also the dynamics of the system etc. We see the deep truth in that lie. Just like that we look back at socialist realism and see a struggling system, a broken dream, how ideas conflict human nature, no matter how much the idea fights for its existence.