/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4633900]

Is art automatically political?

[Anonymous No.4633904]

[Anonymous No.4633915]

>>4633900
yes because being an artist entails having privilege

[Anonymous No.4633941]

Yeah, the anime titties has to do with your mutt narrow politics view, retard

[Anonymous No.4633950]

>>4633900
Nothing inherently political, its just a manipulative thing political people say if you don't want to talk politics.

[Anonymous No.4633952]

Almost all art has a political statement

[Anonymous No.4633957]

everything in life is political. From the decisions you make to the media around you is all sculpted by politics. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool.

[Anonymous No.4633962]

>>4633900
The stupid questions thread exists for a reason, you know. Get your ass in there.

[Anonymous No.4633963]

>>4633900
Judging by the amount of retards that are more interested talking about politics than fucking drawing.Yes

[Anonymous No.4633964]

>>4633900
No. If I paint a landscape, there is no implicit political statement or agenda.

Someone with an agenda might try to twist and abuse logic to insist there's one there, but that's just ego and ideology.

[Anonymous No.4633966]

>>4633957
This post is a good example of ego and ideology, and trying to insert personal politics where it doesn't belong.

If I paint an interesting looking tree, there is no implicit politics. But you'll try to assign one, because you're like that.

[Anonymous No.4633975]

>>4633966
What are his personal politics then ?

A piece doesn’t need to be a political cartoon for it to be political. The only reason people think older art isn’t political is because those politics are so far removed from our own/ learning anything past the title of the piece is too difficult for the average art consumer.

[Anonymous No.4634009]

Political subtext can be found in almost any kind of art. Take Bob Ross and Thomas Kinkade as examples.

Bob Ross landscape paintings convey a Waldenesque return to nature, an appreciation of the environment, untouched by man.

Thomas Kinkade's landscapes are more sentimental, kitsch, and have signs of humans. Unlike Ross's portrayal of nature, Kinkade's seems a commercial product, a theme park set. They can be read as more traditionalist, and pose not even a subtle opposition to the capitalist status quo.

[Anonymous No.4634011]

>>4633966
yes and no, maybe not implied, but painting a tree, even though just because you find it interesting looking, raises the question of what is interesting looking.
as well as adding several meanings and contexts, such as whether it is a native or exotic tree species, and what it may mean in a regional or global view, even if not intentional by the artist.
any expression will always be political

[Anonymous No.4634013]

>>4633975
>What are his personal politics then ?
Don't care, and it doesn't matter, because they're not part of my art, or my world, and I didn't ask to have them imposed on me.

[Anonymous No.4634015]

>>4634011
This is exactly the kind of word salad I was talking about. You're imposing your ideology onto my work. That's ain't your right.

[Anonymous No.4634021]

>>4634011
It’s just a fucking tree, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.4634028]

>>4634011
unironically hope you get cancer

[Anonymous No.4634043]

>>4633900
only if you're retarded

[Anonymous No.4634060]

Yes because art is a reflection of your personal views, tastes and deeply held biases which are political. This works on several layers, either art itself is a reflection of your/society's politics or your art serves a political purpose. It is a matter of degrees though, there is a certain arbitrary threshold where the political beliefs expressed are so subtle and either so insignificant or deeply rooted that the art can be considered apolitical for practical purposes.

[Anonymous No.4634073]

>>4634015
>>4634021
>>4634028
Not him but where is the argument? Its easy to have a kneejerk reaction to this concept because you dont want others assume your intent, but realistically he is correct we are all the products of the world we live in and likewise our actions have an impact on others. The main thing is that some political expressions are simply very trivial and not worth getting worked up over, such as the underlying meaning behind a tree which while there is of little consequence. But if you dismiss the entire concept you are shutting down your own brain for no reason and avoiding introspection

[Anonymous No.4634079]

>>4634073
It's just a tree. Stop trying to impose your ideology onto me, it's not your job. Your attempts to shame me are adorable.

[Anonymous No.4634087]

>>4634079
What ideology? For it to just be a tree you need to deny basic causality, there are some very real reasons why you chose to draw one specific tree or another, the way you drew it and so on unless you just randomized it removing your own agency. And yes people who shun introspection deserve nothing but contempt

[Anonymous No.4634088]

>>4634087
More word salad. You're trying to hard. Fun thread, won't read again. Try /pol, they love endless word salad circle jerks there.

[Anonymous No.4634091]

>>4634088
Fag

[Anonymous No.4634106]

>>4633900
Here is a pic of a dog girl.
It's political meaning is that all women are bitches who are constantly yaping about nothing and deserve to be treated as animals.

[Anonymous No.4634110]

>>4634087
People like trees and landscapes because of biology not politics

[Anonymous No.4634121]

>>4634110
What does that even mean, politics are our biology interacting with the environment not some separate thing

[Anonymous No.4634125]

>>4634121
You're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.4634126]

>>4634121
I bet you think it's politics when a heterosexual dude gets aroused by a womans ass too since everything is a social construction, right?

[Anonymous No.4634128]

>>4634125
>>4634126
Do you fags have even one (1) argument or will you continue to whinge aimlessly because you don't like the concept that the things you draw are the direct result of your personality, beliefs and the society you live in rather than being pulled out of some empty void?

[Anonymous No.4634132]

>>4634121
You mean "politics" as the equivalent to what the Chinese call "chi"?

[Anonymous No.4634134]

>Chi (or qi) is synonymous with breath in the Chinese Language. In combination with other words, however, chi denotes slightly different concepts. Qi gong, for instance, literally translates to, ‘breath-work’, but the scope of qigong goes much deeper into developing the energy that animates the body.

[Anonymous No.4634142]

>>4634132
If chi means a set of beliefs, biases, personality traits which can be made concrete in the form of action or policy that affect other people, groups, society as a whole or institutions then yes. What's your definition of politics?

[Anonymous No.4634148]

>>4634128
How do you explain then that a conservative and a progressive leftie can enjoy drawing the same things, then? It seems to suggest that there's a deeper layer to art that transcends politics. Politics are the most superficial level of analysis.

[Anonymous No.4634164]

>>4634148
Most people share some baseline political beliefs no matter where they stand on the political spectrum, and some things simply don't have strong enough political implications to matter. But let me ask you this, do you think that if you look at the seemingly non political pieces of progressives and conservatives, you won't be able to observe trends and expressions of preferences that reflect the beliefs of their creators?

[Anonymous No.4634169]

>>4633957
If everything is political then nothing is political...

[Anonymous No.4634170]

>>4634164
>Most people share some baseline political beliefs no matter where they stand on the political spectrum
which renders the idea of "all art is political" meaningless

>But let me ask you this, do you think that if you look at the seemingly non political pieces of progressives and conservatives, you won't be able to observe trends and expressions of preferences that reflect the beliefs of their creators?
No I can't tell the difference between still life or portrait made by a conservative or progressive and neither can you.

[Anonymous No.4634177]

>>4634170
Nah it doesn't, it just highlights that it's a matter of degrees. We can still draw an arbitrary lines for "apolitical art", for practical purpose. Also I'm not so sure, it depends on the degree of stylization and abstraction happening since the idea relies on the artist's agency. If both simply capture real life like a camera would then yeah, their art would not reflect their beliefs because they had no agency when creating it. If however they are given a lot of freedom and self expression then I have no doubt that many differences in how they choose to present their subjects will emerge, and if you take a lot of these example I fucking bet identifiable trends will emerge.

[Anonymous No.4634180]

>>4634169
Can you explain that phrase, and how it counters the anon's statements?

[Anonymous No.4634192]

>>4634121
Is a pack of wolves hunting a deer political? Is a flower absorbing water from the ground a political act? See, there's nothing wrong with your idea per se: any macroscopic or microscopic living creature does interact with their environment in some way or another, but you shouldn't call that "political" because people understand "political" in a very different way than you do, the concept has always been associated to ideologies and culture influencing our state of mind when our actions are influenced by other factors too such as biology and basic human behavior where ideological values may not even play an important role

[Anonymous No.4634204]

why are there at least two threads about this shit EVERY FUCKING DAY? one black square on social media turned all you fuckers into crying snowflakes and you say sjws are sensitive, jesus christ

[Anonymous No.4634211]

>>4634192
Politics are a human concept pertaining to our form of organization, if deer and flowers could form such complex societies then yes their biological drives would indeed very often be political, in fact there are amusing cartoons that jokingly explore this idea like Zootopia and Beastars. Also yes I understand that most people will isolate "political" into its own discrete category which is why they are so hostile to this idea that they can be political agents without being conscious of it, but there aren't very good ways to talk about these things in other terms. Tip toeing around this only gets you so far, and overcomplicates things.

[Anonymous No.4634237]

>>4634177
>If both simply capture real life like a camera would then yeah, their art would not reflect their beliefs because they had no agency when creating it. If however they are given a lot of freedom and self expression
I said still life and portrait, not "capture real life like a camera". And even if we're talking about realism there is a endless amount of different approaches to it. I've seen both conservative and progressive people use their freedom to choose to express themselves by painting in a realistic manner.

[Anonymous No.4634243]

>>4633900
No. But more people should make an effort to have their art stand for something.

[Anonymous No.4634247]

>>4634211
Honestly it just sounds like you're bending the definition of "politics" to suit yourself

[Anonymous No.4634253]

>>4633900
No, but anything can be made political. The reason the left has won the culture war so far is that they realized they could make anything a political fighting ground while the boomer conservatives would only bleat "why ya gotta make everything political, I just wanna grill for God's sake!" It sucks for anyone who doesn't care about politics and just wants to draw, but that's the shitty world ya live in son just try and mozy on and ignore the retards.

[Anonymous No.4634257]

>>4634247
Doesn't matter how it sounds, it's just an inevitable conclusion if you take any decent definition of politics to its logical conclusion. What is your definition of political expression?

[Anonymous No.4634270]

>>4634237
This seems like a very weird indirect way to respond. There are different approaches to realism because realism isn't monolithic it's a general set of principles, however most of the non technical differences come from degrees of stylization whether intended or not and things like choice of what you are going to represent in your art

[Anonymous No.4634296]

>>4633900
Art is what people make of it. That's why it's so easily corruptible. At the very least it makes for a good canary.

[Anonymous No.4634359]

>>4633900
No. But all good and meaningful art is.

[Anonymous No.4634882]

>>4634270
>This seems like a very weird indirect way to respond
I'm adressing the claims head on, can't be more direct than that.
>There are different approaches to realism because realism isn't monolithic it's a general set of principles, however most of the non technical differences come from degrees of stylization whether intended or not and things like choice of what you are going to represent in your art
Okay. You didn't really add anything that I didn't cover in my post. Still, the point stands. Good luck trying to consistently identify the political beliefs of a group of skilled artists painting the same still life or model based on stylistic differencies.

[Anonymous No.4634937]

>>4634882
As I said it's a matter of degrees, not an on-off switch. Just because at a certain point the expressions of politics become very difficult to discern doesn't mean they stop existing.

[Anonymous No.4635017]

>>4634937
>nobody can tell that it's there but it's there bro, trust me
compelling argument

[Anonymous No.4635032]

>>4633900
no because true art is not political in any form

meanwhile you're calling shitty twitter comics "art"

[Anonymous No.4635042]

>>4633900
Yes, because it reflects the person's politics.

[Anonymous No.4635063]

depends

[Anonymous No.4635067]

>>4635017
Its there because that is the logical conclusion once you accept the premises I laid out, unless you somehow remove all of the artist's personality from the finished piece while at the same time preserving self expression. If you disagree with the premises then attack them otherwise this is a very strange tangential point that even if 100% correct just shows that we can conceive of a piece of apolitical art.

[Anonymous No.4635138]

>>4633900
everything is political, but not everything is a political statement.

[Anonymous No.4635142]

You fags should know by now that half of a propagandist's job is putting a frame around the truth. The fact is unless you decide randomly what to paint, just your choice of subject out of all possible things to portray says things, even if they're trivial things or deniable implications. "Trees are sometimes interesting" is not very contentious, but to a high modernist like Le Corbusier who has a massive boner for pavement and grids, that's downright controversial. Same with "female ass". Disregarding entirely how the ass is portrayed (in perspective, as if about to sit on your face? Posed? Candid?), Women and gay men generally don't find them notable, which says something about who the painting is meant for. Really trivial shit, but not nothing.

Taking "political" to mean "something I see talked about on social media" is such a retarded and myopic viewpoint. Do you think people were arguing about tranny rights and gun control in precontact africa? Do you think if you saw one of their political arts, you'd be able to tell it from a mud hut? Just because a message is not comprehensible to you or is produced without explicit intention doesn't make it meaningless.

[Anonymous No.4635149]

>>4634237

It means you are not a devout sunni muslim, because portrayal of Allah's creation is considered idolatry.

[Anonymous No.4635161]

>>4634011

you are not wrong, the problem with this is when people use it to make a moral judgment of the author

[Anonymous No.4635187]

>>4633900
if you're a white artist, you're a privileged racist.

[Anonymous No.4635449]

>>4634128
The reason we fail to provide an argument is because you're presenting a subjective interpretation as an absolute fact without any evidence whatsoever.
You're basically stating that the political interpretation of art is inherently a component in the existence of art itself, which is, as the word "interpretation" implies, a SUBJECTIVE view, not a fact. This allows you to just dismiss any counter-argument as non-valid because it doesn't conform to your statement, like this post: >>4634121.
This is inherently a reductive statement, as it fails to take into consideration human appreciation for different subject matters, which is NOT political.

This is the same argument political busybodies utilize to demonize individuals who don't follow their set of politics ("Everything is political, and if something doesn't follow a certain set of politics therefore it is evil and invalid").
For example, radical feminists use the statement "The personal is political" to catalog every action, no matter how inconsequential, as a political statement, which, surprise surprise, was simply an excuse to shame every non-feminist person into accepting feminist ideals by painting individuals as misogynists.

tl;dr We don't provide an argument because you don't provide proof to back up your claim, faggot.

[Anonymous No.4635727]

>>4635449

By denying the reality and relevance of subjective interpretation, you back yourself into an even dumber corner. The only thing art "objectively" is is pigment on canvas. There is no such thing as an "objective" portrayal because nothing in the world is flat and made out of rocks suspended in oil. Art cannot be appreciated without interpreting it, and all interpretations are colored by politics. There is no objective ground to stand on and there never was.

[Anonymous No.4635756]

Do americans really try to compensate their lack of culture with politics?

[Anonymous No.4635769]

>>4635756
yes

[Anonymous No.4635780]

>>4635032

Shit like this reminds me of burgerlanders who think they aren't at war because they are insulated by a giant ocean.

Just because the battle lines are far away doesn't mean you aren't paying taxes to fund soldiers, watching hollywood movies that fellate the military in exchange for access to vehicles and bases as props, working for civilian companies that take military contracts like microsoft and boeing, ect.

You are political by default. You don't have to ask for it, you can't opt out of it, you will be milked and shoved around by politics whether you like it or not. Sticking your head in the sand does not absolve you, it just makes you a rube.

[Anonymous No.4635879]

Everything is political to some degree so yes

[Anonymous No.4636020]

>>4634009
>and pose not even a subtle opposition to the capitalist status quo

commie please go, you all are insufferable as fuck. He draws cozy homes in the forest. fuck off with the "capitalism" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4636044]

>>4633900
Define art retard

[Anonymous No.4636050]

>>4633900
Depends, doesn't it?
Let's say you like drawing straight, lewd art. If you did that 25+ years ago, you were most likely a liberal, and you'd be condemned by Christian conservatives. If you do it today, you're deemed a sexist pig who objectifies women, so you're deemed right-wing.
Go figure.

[Anonymous No.4636065]

>>4635727
You're an incredibly stupid person.

[Anonymous No.4636070]

Only if you are American.

Already had a thread about this, fuck you.

[Anonymous No.4636076]

>>4635756
Blame Lacan and all the other gay European philosophers for the post-modern mess we're in

[Anonymous No.4636084]

>>4633900
No. Art very often is political but if you go out and draw like a sunset or something there's no political statement in that.
Really >>4633963 and >>4633950 are right. People are just obsessed with politics because it's modern day tribalism

[Anonymous No.4636133]

>>4633900
>the political threads started taking over the talent threads
But at what cost?

[Anonymous No.4636365]

>>4635449
>You're basically stating that the political interpretation of art is inherently a component in the existence of art itself

Nope. What I am saying is that political experession is an innate component of art because art is a reflection of your biases and beliefs which are socially informed AND have social implications. I have not seen a single person meaningfully dispute this claim, only complain about my broad definition of "political" while providing no definition of their own. Political interpretation is not inherent, no clue where you got the idea that I said this

[Anonymous No.4636378]

>>4636365
this only makes sense if you are nihilist, art with positive messages have nothing to do with beliefs and biases

[Anonymous No.4636381]

>>4635727
This is a good point actually, you don't have much of a choice whether or not your interpretation of art is colored by politics, even when passively experiencing it and not thinking about the artist's beliefs
>>4636065
He's spot on though you fag

[Anonymous No.4636382]

>>4633900
No. It's bullshit that Jewish "scholars" made to push marxism and destroy traditional art. You can paint literal shit on a canvas and bullshit a political meaning from it, thereby making it "good".

[Anonymous No.4636387]

>>4636378
The fuck are you saying, where do you think your idea of what "positive messages" are comes from?

[Anonymous No.4636404]

>>4636387
god

[Anonymous No.4636407]

>pol·i·tics
>/ˈpäləˌtiks/
>noun
>the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Every time I see this debate nobody uses the above definition and thinks that politics is essentially the sum of your interests and beliefs, why is that? It seems to me like the people who say "art/everything is political" are saying whatever you draw is how you think the world should be and what you'd shape it into if you had the power to so if you draw 42DD bimbos you're a misogynist and if you draw nothing but trees you're an eco-fascist.

[Anonymous No.4636409]

>>4636404
So the (I assume) christian ideology then

[Anonymous No.4636414]

>>4636407
Because it's an extremely reductive definition that looks at only the byproduct of political beliefs rather than the political beliefs themselves, I think most understand that politics is more than just policy, clashes within the government and elections, which is why they dont use that definition.

[Anonymous No.4636433]

>>4636414
From Wiki
>Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources.
I mean what definition are all these people using then? Isn't that just commandeering words and ignoring the definition that everyone else uses?

[Anonymous No.4636470]

>>4636409
>why does every indigenous culture believe in something than isnt material?

[Anonymous No.4636471]

Everything is political.

[Anonymous No.4636473]

>>4636433
I already posted my definition >>4634142

That definition you posted is very broad already, "associated with making decisions in groups" covers such a huge range of things from direct action and policy proposals to more subtle advocacy. The problem is that most people don't use any consistent definition of politics because they didn't think about it, it exists as a discrete thing in their heads but they can't actually explain why it's discrete or narrow, which is why their definition of politics should be ignored.

[Anonymous No.4636482]

>>4636473
But by your non-strictly government related definition anything can be political because people can have beliefs and biases about anything which means everything is political and the word loses all meaning.

[Anonymous No.4636488]

>>4636365
your point boils down to "culture affects our ideas and behavior and thus the art we make", which is true to a degree and everyone knows that, but there are other factors as well, not just society as you make it sound.

along with upbringing, human nature plays a major role in the stuff we create. by boiling it all down to cultural relativism you undermine the complexity of art and what primal emotions and mental states it reflects off of their authors. that's why everyone rejects your point, not only it offers an incomplete view of reality but it's also part of the narrative pushed by certain movements who love to use your statement to attack groups who avoid siding with them.

there's no logical conclusion to be arrived at from your statement. something being influenced by politics is not the same as it being political, just like something being inspired by sex, nature, love, violence, etc, does not necessarily make it sexual, naturalistic, nor would love or violence be necessarily present in it.

all you need to do is stop saying "everything is political" and instead word it like "all workpieces are in part influenced by culture, along with other factors" and this whole fabricated issue will come to an end.

[Anonymous No.4636490]

>>4636482
>anything can be political
Yes
>the word loses all meaning
No, why would it? This definition forces you to acknowledge the fact that you are a political agent whether you want to be or not, there are types of political agents and levels of political effectiveness still. If you really want, an "apolitical" line could be drawn arbitrarily for political expressions that are passive, insignificant, hard to discern and ineffective but that's strictly for pragmatic purposes, and you still have to argue for why you want to draw it where you want to draw it.

[Anonymous No.4636516]

>>4636488
Do you think human nature is some kind of specific, distinct thing? Everything we do is the byproduct of human nature interacting with the environment, human nature is what creates and dictates politics, everything stems from primal emotions to some extent. The presence of primal emotions doesn't undermine my point in any way, or even add to it very much because at best it helps us make assumptions where those political expressions come from initially, you'd still have to address the actual politics that are being expressed either way.
>something being influenced by politics is not the same as it being political
What do you mean by "influenced by politics", and what do you mean by "political"? Define those first because as I said, without a concrete definition of politics that contradicts mine you're not really saying anything meaningful.
>instead word it like "all workpieces are in part influenced by culture, along with other factors"
Why? Culture is politics, the "other factors" like nature also have political manifestations. So what's the point in making this distinction besides that it makes people less upset because it removes their responsibility as a political agent, and does not force them to introspect and figure out their own motivations?

[Anonymous No.4636530]

>>4636490
>No, why would it?
I guess "loses all meaning" isn't the correct way to frame it but if your definition of politics
> a set of beliefs, biases, personality traits which can be made concrete in the form of action or policy that affect other...
then what you're saying is "everything you say and do ends up affecting the world around you (socially, materially, etc.)" which is just a tautology.
Saying "art is political" becomes redundant with that definition and implies that there are things that humans do/make which aren't then political (don't affect the world around them)

[Anonymous No.4636563]

>>4636530
Wait, what is your argument? Of course it's an all encompassing almost tautological definition because. It's a self-evident truth to anyone who believes this, however it's juxtaposed with reductive definitions which try to separate that which is impossible to separate and by extension justify things like passivity. Again, if you don't like how all encompassing the definition is, you need to make some actual arguments for it. If you want to argue that "apolitical" is an arbitrary line for insignificant, ineffective and/or nearly non discernible political expressions then I would agree

[Anonymous No.4636584]

>>4636563
I'm just wondering why the word "political" gets chosen for this discussion. It seems to me like it just muddies up what you're trying to say. If people's point in saying that "art is political" is that "art affects the world around you" then why even bother saying anything at all? Grass is green, water is wet, and actions have consequences no matter how small. No one is arguing that. Given the pointlessly tautological nature of this expression I can only assume people who say it are trying to say something else, something about government and policy (because whether you see it as such or not, politics for most people just means stuff relating to the government) and as such leads me to conclude they mean something like what I mentioned in >>4636407

>people who say "art/everything is political" are saying whatever you draw is how you think the world should be and what you'd shape it into if you had the power to so if you draw 42DD bimbos you're a misogynist and if you draw nothing but trees you're an eco-fascist.

[Anonymous No.4636596]

>>4634009

Oh yes, because Bob, "My face is still used to sell art supplies to middle-aged hobbyists 25 years after my death" is such an anti-corporate icon.

[Anonymous No.4636615]

>>4636584
The reason it has to be said is because there are people who deny even this tautological meaning whether explicitly or implicitly by reacting negatively to the idea that they are passively expressing their political beliefs in their art. If people agreed then the discussion would be far more productive because they could simply discuss the political implications of the art they make, people's ability/inability to correctly interpret works and so on, instead of trying to deny a basic reality and proposing no alternatives just because they don't want to get shit from twitter leftists

[Anonymous No.4636628]

>>4636615
Then my point becomes people who say "art is political" should probably stop phrasing it like that because obviously it causes a lot of misunderstanding. If you want to discuss how artistry affects the zeitgeist or whatever you shouldn't get stuck arguing the premise simply because of a confusion around how people use the word "politics". Re-framing it in a concrete and irrefutable (?) manner such as "actions and expressions, art included, affect the world" seems like a much better way to start a discussion.

[Anonymous No.4636639]

>>4636584

I mean, yes, obviously the people pushing this view have an agenda, but so does literally everyone, that's the point of the aphorism. Do you think the people going "politics is government and career politicians, nothing else" don't also benefit from the worldview that inculcates in people, where no decisions they make or stance they take can be thought of in terms of alliances and power struggles amongst interested groups unless the evening news gives them the OK by placing the issue in either the blue or red box?

That the definition of politics contains things that are trivial or self explanatory is natural - because politics happens on all levels of human interaction, from the playground to the workplace to the family dining room. Soccer is soccer whether you're playing the World Cup or a pick up game.

[Anonymous No.4636644]

>>4636639
>Do you think the people going "politics is government and career politicians, nothing else" don't also benefit
I'd take them over what you're pushing any day.

[Anonymous No.4636645]

>>4636628
I think I agree at least in the short term and in one-on-one discussions, but "art is political/everything is political" are slogans that are meant to be quick, catchy and aggressively attack the common mentality of a strict separation of personal and political. You cannot convey that while tip toeing around "politics". For what it's worth, it seems to work as well since people of all political "camps" have internalized the message and are becoming more extreme in how they express their beliefs and more aware of how the media they consume carries political messages.

[Anonymous No.4636665]

>>4636644

And this is why you "I just wanna grill"-cels have been cucked by the GOP for decades now. They get rich off of you and you don't even know how to ask for compensation, you think because you voted for them that their wins are your wins, as all the things you love sink slowly into the sand and they do nothing to stop it.

[Anonymous No.4636671]

>>4636645
I'd tend to disagree because to me it feels like the sentiment behind such a statement is of a more philosophical nature rather than just political.

[Anonymous No.4636690]

>>4636671
why would you think philosophical statements are bad?

[Anonymous No.4636691]

>>4636516
You haven't provided a concrete definition of politics other than >>4634121, which is so stupidly broad that it includes bacteria and plants and it stops being a human concept.

>it makes people less upset because it removes their responsibility as a political agent
Not an issue, people can understand their actions affect society and are modeled by it (along with biology) without adopting your definitions. Politics have always been understood as being related to ideology, cultural values and administering communities, that's why your notion that "everything is political" is rejected, it implies all our actions are purely driven by ideology and seek to assert ideological statements, which is false as many other elements of human nature play a role in our actions too, as well as what kind of art we create as well.

[Anonymous No.4636698]

>>4636691
>which is so stupidly broad that it includes bacteria and plants
You don't have the IQ necessary to have this conversation. Politics are a human concept just as our society is a human construct, if bacteria and plants had such constructs then yes their actions would also be political, but they don't.
>Not an issue, people can understand their actions affect society and are modeled by it
They can, they don't.
>Ideology
What's an ideology? How is culture formed? Your own ideas already imply such a broad definition that it can't meaningfully disagree with me, and you don't even follow the definition you propose either. Is reinforcing the believes of the current political system ideological? How about doing that but for culture? Can a person be a political agent without intending to? Obviously yes.

[Anonymous No.4636704]

>>4636690
I don't think I implied that but either way that's not what I mean.
Something like art likely affects more than just the political world, starting a discussion with "art is political" seems like it needlessly narrows the conversation to just one domain it influences. Artistry's influence is broad enough that a discussion on it is more of a philosophical one.

[Anonymous No.4636715]

>>4636698
Is a hermit with amnesia living in the wild who likes eating boar living a political statement?
Is a bacteria splitting itself to populate a poltical act?
Is the explosion of the sun resulting in gases creating nebulae across the sky a political statement?
Is a drop of water dripping from a cave a political statement?

Is all of the above a god damm political statement, or is it life just living as it is without giving a shit what a Twitter user has to say about it?

[Anonymous No.4636719]

>>4636715
>Is a hermit with amnesia living in the wild who likes eating boar living a political statement?
Damn I guess you blew me the fuck out, humans who are for all intents and purposes feral animals who aren't engaged with with our society aren't political, I will concede. The rest is just braindead shit

[Anonymous No.4636747]

>>4636698
He implies that not all human behaviour are a result of social construct,therefore not everything is political. Which is perfectly true. Meaning some primal instincts and the capture of such insticts through an artistic medium has little political connotations. However, in the politicising of things such as family, a drawing of a smiling child with their parents is translated to have political connotations, which is family values, maybe marriage. People who holds this view in contempt will claim this picture is politically charged, when it's almost a biological fact that humans are social animals that needs a stable group to sustain themselves.. By your definition, everything a Chimpanzee, Dolphin or Orca does has political connotations which may or may not be true.

[Anonymous No.4636767]

>>4636747
Did you read anything I said? A political message being unconsciously expressed as a result of basic biological urges is still a political message, just as a political message being expressed because of socialization is still a political message. Fucking tribalism and racism to some extent are the byproducts of natural biological urges and are constantly unconsciously expressed, are they apolitical? Fuck no.

[Anonymous No.4636792]

>>4636665
Believing a drawing of a tree means the artist was an eco fascist didn't get Bernie elected, so your way isn't working out too well either.

[Anonymous No.4636794]

>>4636767
Lol racism is not biological retard. And yes I did understand your point, my point is that I disagree in relation to biological urges, cunt.

[Anonymous No.4636798]

>>4636794
>>4636747
Actually, I don't even disagree. I completely agree. Your tone is just so insufferable I just want to fucking call you out for being a vehement dipshit. I hope your fucking views get stomped down again and again because of how shit of a person you are.

[Anonymous No.4636807]

>>4636798
Stay mad, making you fags seethe makes it all worth it

[Anonymous No.4636808]

>>4633941
Porn is one of the most political things in media right now, what the fuck are you on about?

[Anonymous No.4636811]

>>4634015
No you fucking dumbo. You made the decision to paint a tree because you love nature. That's a political statement. Politics do not only encapsulate "what the government is doing". You throw ideology in there it gets even bigger.

What am I even doing wasting my time trying to educate /ic/? Go back to crabbing on /beg/.

[Anonymous No.4636815]

>>4633964
You don't think choosing to draw a landscape instead of a cityscape is not a political choice? kek The absolute state of the art community today.

[Anonymous No.4636851]

>>4636815
>>4636811

>If you like drawing furries fucking each other in the ass you MUST be a Democrat

[Anonymous No.4636856]

>>4636851
Where's the lie

[Anonymous No.4636887]

>>4636414
>it's a reductive definition, I want it to be vague so I can easily make anything sound political

[Anonymous No.4636930]

>>4636811
>You dared to draw a fucking tree? Excuse me? You fucking hippie piece of shit! This is obviously a political statement on how trees are so much better than mankind!
>You dared to draw a fucking stick figure? Excuse me? Obviously, you're a human supremacist who believes that humanity is more important than nature!
>You dared to draw a fucking fork? Excuse me? This is obviously a political statement on the inherent superiority of forks over spoons! Fork artist is /ourguy/!
Art is not inherently political. I can draw a fucking cup and it's not an endorsement of fucking Black Lives Matter. Anyone who thinks that because a black person can use a cup and I drew a cup and therefore I'm an anti-racist protester is fucking retarded.

You don't have to love nature to paint a tree, you can fucking despise nature and trees and still draw one. Drawing a fucking tree is not a political statement.

[Anonymous No.4636936]

>>4636887
Correct, because it better reflects the human condition and social dynamics than some dumb gay "politics is when men in suits talk policy :)" infant tier shit

[Anonymous No.4636942]

>>4636930
Your drawing a cup if the cup is unique is an endorsement of artistic expression therefore can be speculated as anti-authoritarian. Your drawing of a cup if it's sterile can also signify the glofication of mass production therefore a pro-capitalist pro-industrial revolution art piece. Your drawing of a cup if it's handmade, yet nuetral is the support of the utility of simplistic object crafted from a labourous process. Therefore signifying humility of certain artistic profesion. However also a comment on the disposibility of the maker however usefull they are. If you are drawing a glass cup with a white backdrop, your utter deflection from meaning is in itself a philosphical query of meaning itself, therefore is completely political.

[Anonymous No.4636983]

>>4636942
What if the art is made by an AI?
Can you insert your analogies onto how an algorithm creates art, or are your selfish ideologies so stuck up that you will go so far to even brainwash completely harmless aliens just stopping by the planet?

[Anonymous No.4636991]

>>4636936
But that's really all it is, invent your own word

[Anonymous No.4637054]

>>4633900
>Draw a line
>The line is neither a protest against conformity by conforming to a line to show how boring lines are, nor is it a celebration of conformity by conforming to a line
>It's just a fucking line, and is not political in any way
Problem solved

[Anonymous No.4637085]

>>4636983
the fact that it was created with AI is in itself a political statement. My point is that politicizing everything is fucking retarded. Everything is "political" and what "political" actually entails is "meaning" and "morals" which IS everything. The only "politics" that matters is the one that lawfully dictate what you should and shouldn't do. And your agreement or disagreement with the current one is where the definition of that word starts to branch and warp into everything. This discussion is retarded and people who are against political talk is reasonable as what "political talk" that they mean actually entails a certain snobby philosophy talk that pretends that they have absolute answer over every single matter. The repercussion of engaging in this is division and the polarization of anyone that consumes the thought.

[Anonymous No.4637086]

>>4634180
Not that anon, but if "everything is political" simply means that everything can be viewed through the lens of politics (how has it been influenced by the artists politics and what are its political consequences), then everything must equally be psychological, social, aesthetic, spiritual, material and any other metric that can be said to affect and be affected by human activity. So why should one such dimension, the political lens, be given a privileged position over other modes, why should one assume that everything is FUNDAMENTALLY political, that human activity can be reduced to the political?

[Anonymous No.4637114]

>>4636942
>your utter deflection from meaning is in itself a philosphical query of meaning itself, therefore is completely political.
See, this is what I'm talking about. Is a philosophical query fundamentally political? If so, to be "politically responsible" I should weigh its political consequences - but this seems like a simple contradiction in terms to me. Political consequences don't exist as some kind of immediately accessible "given", independent from my philosophical position, the political significance of an action equally shifts depending on which philosophical lens it is viewed through. The terms are in a dynamic, dialectical relationship, so political theory can not be applied as a totally independent outside criterion to critique philosophy or vice versa.

[Anonymous No.4637123]

I wonder if we're helping some anon write a paper

[Anonymous No.4637136]

>>4637086
Because politics are violence in a world of states, and for the most part there is no way to escape said violence if you are under the state's authority since the state has a monopoly on force. It's because of this power that politics have over huge groups of people that being cautious of political expressions should be prioritized. If you are religious then I guess this argument applies less, and you are most likely going to act accordingly, prioritizing spiritual matters.

[Anonymous No.4637154]

>>4637136
You're still talking about "violence" and "the state" as though they aren't abstract, constructed concepts that hold the specific meaning you are taking for granted only within your particular matrix of signifiers.
One could equally tell a story about how your first moral responsibility is to virtue or your own will to power, and that all political discussion is ultimately just philosophy without self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.4637164]

>>4637154
What is your point? Sure they could do that but they would have to present actual arguments for this, and arguments against prioritizing politics and consequences. Though politics can be heavily prioritized even if one has different ethical frameworks like virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.4637177]

>>4637123
its very possible

[Anonymous No.4637182]

>>4637164
Nah, because you haven't gone beyond making unsubstantiated claims. All I need to do to call their validity into question is counter with some potentially plausible alternative hypotheses of my own. To show that the political lens is paramount, you would have to show through specific examples why political considerations ought to be given priority over other values like self-determination, freedom of expression, free aesthetic and spiritual pursuits, etc.

[Anonymous No.4637186]

>>4637182
The claims are fully substantiated if you share my basic beliefs. What you need to do to undermine my arguments is essentially ask me to justify my axiomatic beliefs objectively so that even people who don't share them would have to agree, which is what you're doing. It's a counter-productive discussion because the mental hoops required to attempt to justify your basic beliefs are absurd, and more importantly they don't work, the goal is to appeal to people who share your axioms and essentially agree to disagree with the rest. Furthermore, none of this is even relevant to the question of whether everything is political or not, but rather how much significance that fact has.

[Anonymous No.4637195]

holy fuck you fags are still going on about this?

[Anonymous No.4637200]

>>4637136
>The claims are fully substantiated if you share my basic beliefs.
You just played yourself. You're operating with an outdated foundationalist model of knowledge. There are no axioms, all terms are relative to other terms. If you can't substantiate a basic belief, that means you're a slave to ideology.

[Anonymous No.4637208]

>>4637186
>Furthermore, none of this is even relevant to the question of whether everything is political or not, but rather how much significance that fact has.
if "everything is political" is akin to "everything is atoms" in its significance for how one should act, it's a totally different statement from the one you're trying to make.

[Anonymous No.4637212]

>>4637200
Can you elaborate on what kind of justification you want with some examples? And what is "all terms are relative to other terms" supposed to imply here, is your argument that the political cannot be understood without juxtaposing it with other terms like non-political?

[Anonymous No.4637217]

>>4637208
Yes because I interpret that fact using my ethical framework which assigns significance to it, that doesn't mean others with different ethical frameworks cannot put different amounts of significance on it however

[Anonymous No.4637224]

>>4637212
>And what is "all terms are relative to other terms" supposed to imply here, is your argument that the political cannot be understood without juxtaposing it with other terms like non-political?
refer to >>4637114
I'd say, arguing that it can be understood without reflecting on the way it is itself mediated by other variables is pure epistemological nonsense.
To show what significance politics has and what that significance ought to mean for other aspects of human life, you would have to analyse specific activities. Take a great work of art, reconstruct the political forces that have brought about its creation, trace its political consequences and argue that everything it "is" follows from these, show how self-actualization is actually just the manifestation of political forces working through an individual, that their agency is an illusion, show that virtue is a cover for political oppression - explain various ideals people take to be "essential", axiomatic entities in terms of political forces and invite others to challenge that construction.

[Anonymous No.4637237]

>>4637224
I never argued his position though, "everything is political" is a nice catchy slogan but the true meaning is a bit more complicated than that. What it means is that human expressions and activities within a society have political implications. The significance you choose to assign to this is on you.

And yeah that example is what I figured, I don't really have an interest in justifying my belief that politics are significant, I'm only interested in showing the political nature of art and appealing to people who do share my beliefs about the importance of politics.

[Anonymous No.4637257]

>>4637237
"Everything is political", to me, strongly recalls "the personal is political", and the way every aspect of human existence was collapsed into the political dimension in the Soviet Union. If all you're trying to argue is that it's possible to interpret human activity politically, you shouldn't make sweeping statements like "politics are violence in a world of states, and for the most part there is no way to escape said violence if you are under the state's authority since the state has a monopoly on force." so "being cautious of political expressions should be prioritized" (unless that's a different anon).

[Anonymous No.4637265]

>>4637257
No it's not simply that human activity can be *interpreted* politically, it's that it ultimately has political effects and turns into or reinforces policy or social attitudes. It's almost tautological, simply saying that human actions (or beliefs when expressed through action) have an effect

[Anonymous No.4637276]

>>4637265
It isn't tautological because ought doesn't follow from is. Political thought by itself does not create positive political consequences, precisely because, being result-oriented, it tries to suppress other, free forms of human activity that are necessary for social progress, i.e. artwork that is created not as a political tool and can transcend the political, speech that isn't aimed at producing political results, but at deliberation and communication, choices based on ones personal sense of morals and so on.

[Anonymous No.4637283]

>>4637276
That does not follow, it assumes that the only value one can possibly have is political consequences, but realistically it has to be weighted against your other values whatever they may be, nothing about it is incompatible. Unless you think that the mere presence of conflict between values is suppressive

[Anonymous No.4637316]

>>4637283
I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with here. You said that "human activity has political effects and turns into or reinforces policy or social attitudes.", I argued that you can't derive an ought from that. Artistic activity is influenced by politics and in its turn influences politics, but it isn't politics itself, just like matter influences life and is influenced by life, but isn't alive itself.
The moment you concede that political consequences aren't the only value one can possibly have, it would be more sensible to say "everything is contextuality and politics, being part of that contextuality, is reflected in everything, just like everything else".

[Anonymous No.4637327]

>>4637316
Ah ok, yes I agree it's not an ought statement. Art isn't politics of course, I don't think that's what anyone means when they say that art is political, they mean specifically what you're saying - that it's influenced by politics and influences politics. The slogan's not very descriptive but scrutinizing political slogans seems pointless because they can't afford nuance. You can't put this :
>"everything is contextuality and politics, being part of that contextuality, is reflected in everything, just like everything else".
On a t-shirt

[Anonymous No.4637355]

>>4637327
I'm fine with this, but I'll add that a lot of people don't make that distinction, and "everything is political" is absolutely used to censor artistic activity, just like ACAB is used in the literal sense, and that the language all but invites being misused in this way. Political slogans are often made into an excuse for people to be lowlifes while hiding behind "I don't think that's what anyone means :)".

[Anonymous No.4637358]

>>4637355
*a lot of people outside of academia

[Anonymous No.4637373]

>>4633950
This. It’s a thing people say to bully you into them being able to place you into their “good person” or “bad person” categories based on their own personal dogma. Ignore them.
I paint and take inspiration from the natural world because nature and beauty in my eyes are the most wonderful things about life. I love animals. I don’t draw and paint a squirrel sitting on a tree surrounded by wildflowers because “it’s representative of being a transgender lesbian Demiqueer Black latinx in the modern world and the artist is trying to depict their internal struggle with Marxist philosophy and the capitalist system” fuck no...I draw it because I love squirrels. And trees. And wildflowers. Love and Beauty are the redeeming qualities of this hell prison of a planet.

[Anonymous No.4637375]

>>4633900
Sometimes

[Anonymous No.4637381]

>>4633900
No.
>>4633915
>>4633957
>>4634060
What's the political stance in my pic?

[Anonymous No.4637385]

>>4637381
Christian reactionary and barely repressed homosexual

[Anonymous No.4637391]

>>4637381
wants to fuck his mother
sublimation of class conflict
proto-fascist preference for natural order
struggling with alcoholism
he was part of that whole yale thing

[Anonymous No.4637394]

>>4635756
Only leftys and niggers think America has no culture.

[Anonymous No.4637438]

>>4634121
t. merishart without culture

[Anonymous No.4637440]

>>4635769
You are misusing the meme isleshitter

[Anonymous No.4637442]

>>4637438
I'm not American, and you are retarded if you think America has no culture, it has basically culturally invaded the entire world and aggressively homogenized it with its cancerous worship of corporations, liberalism and capitalism. Nowhere is safe and every culture is going to be swallowed up by America's soft cultural imperialism.

[Anonymous No.4637448]

>>4637394
Ok ivan Hernandez mueller bjornsson

[Anonymous No.4637451]

>>4637442
>I’m too retarded to understand what culture means
Stop posting then

[Anonymous No.4637458]

>>4637451
Define it and explain how America doesn't qualify without coming off as a hyper-subjective sperg

[Anonymous No.4637501]

>>4637394
Whatever makes you cope you cultureless swine.

[Anonymous No.4637612]

The narcissist is the one who tries to make everything benefit them and about them, no matter who's thrown under the bus, so long themselves aren't in the risk of ending up under the tire.

[Anonymous No.4637614]

>oh haha i didn't mean politics in the way that literally everyone else means it, i mean it with a different definition which makes it apply to literally everything haha

[Anonymous No.4637649]

>>4637355
Whats that term used to describe a butterfly effect that isnt deliberate?
Thread sounds like people are trying to say that art is something that creates a cause and effect scenario but conflate the definition with political ideology.
Maybe what anons here are trying to say is that its a part of a cause and effect that goes through everything that exists? idk

[Anonymous No.4637663]

>>4633900
I mean yes, but generally insignificantly so. As with everything else.

[Anonymous No.4637697]

>>4637649
the closest thing in modern philosophy might be relationalism, but it's really just nu-daoism imo.