I never knew why people need to conflate the personality or political opinions of the artist with the art they make.
In my opinion, even if the artist is a terrible human being they can still produce some good art. And even if the art they produce is crap, it can still prove valuable, as it can be parodied, modified, transformed or mocked.
Are you ignoring the fact that the artist in question specifically makes anti-left propoganda? Like it’s literally their entire identity to try (and fail) to make fun of leftist politics
Yes, I am. Depending on whom you base your ideas on what art is you can defend the case that art has two main components - its conceptual (the political or other ideas of the artist) and its perceptual part (the craftsmanship).
In this case the conceptual part of the work is completely removed, leaving only the craftsmanship. I see no problem in sharing this, and I see no possible slippery slope here.
In short, just because someone is a fascist does not mean they can’t be a good craftsman, and should not be seen and analyzed. Take for example Adolf Dassler’s Adidas.
Quite frankly, I would also love to see what the original cartoon looks like. Not because I would agree with it, but because I want to know how extreme rightwingers represent me (or us, I guess). I want to know how their propaganda looks like. And I personally believe we should all know and care about it, if we want to combat it successfully.
I suggest looking through his twitter feed (not saying you didn’t) and paying close attention to the depiction of (not/) favoured men/ women. Twitter links warning In this cartoon (twitter) you can see the unnecessary sexualisation, while this one shows the exact opposite (cuz political enemy and black, idk). Also: Usual depiction of Joe Biden, heavy incel vibes and a masterpiece in bigotry. Make of that what you will, but I think stripping all his influence out of his cartoons would be more work than actually drawing new ones.___
Well, art is political by its very nature. It is inherently filled with the views and beliefs of the artist, and it’s important to point out the dangerous ones so people are aware and to prevent a potential slippery slope to radicalization. Or to prevent moments like that time Smash Mouth unknowingly retweeted art from a famous lolicon artist.
As for the rest, I completely agree. One of the ways to deal with a shitty person is to take their propaganda and meme the shit out of it.
Is it though? I once made a little tree out of wires as a birthday present because trees grow. How was that political? A friend of mine did a digital portrait of one of her friends for fun, how was that political? A whole genre of art is: “I saw a beautiful sight in nature and wanted to paint it”. Nothing political about that. I mean, “Art for art’s sake” was a whole movement. If it’s political by nature, removing the politics would mean that it’s not art anymore. And some musicians refuse to tell people what their music is about because they believe that everyone should give it their own personal meaning. But, as I said, a lot of art has no “meaning” besides: this looks/sounds nice/calming/cool/energizing.
Yes, it stems from the beliefs and feelings of the artists, but if we extend the meaning of politics so far that someone painting a mountainside transfers a political message, the term becomes pretty unusable.
what is beautiful is political. Valuing art based on beauty is political. Maybe your friend is ugly. Maybe they are not, and that’s why the portrait was done.
The act of creating is expressing power, and the expression of power and choices about who and what is valued is the core of “political.”
It isn’t always a clear cut thing, sometimes it’s a deeper philosophical idea and much less on the surface.
Maybe “political” is too far and “a collection of choices that reflect and potentially propagate culture or societal beliefs.” Is better.
Being able to make a choice is power. However small. And politics is all about power. Art is all about choices.
I mean, sure, but that absolutely devalues the meaning of the word. Absolutely every single thing you do is preceeded by a choice to do that, and choices are reflective of ones inner self, and if making a choice is power, and politics is all about power, then every single thing you do is political. Waking up before sunrise is political, waking up later is political, saying hello to your neighbour is political. Recording a guitar riff that just sounds cool is political. I created croissants yesterday, that was political.
Words are created to be used, and “political” cannot be used in any meaningful way if it refers to everything. While you probably could soundly argue that a child drawing random lines with crayons is political, it’s really pointless since it’s just pedantry that doesn’t add value, but rather devalues the word.
Not weighing in on the other stuff, but I would disagree with the statement that art is political by its very nature. I think it really depends on the art.
I never knew why people need to conflate the personality or political opinions of the artist with the art they make.
In my opinion, even if the artist is a terrible human being they can still produce some good art. And even if the art they produce is crap, it can still prove valuable, as it can be parodied, modified, transformed or mocked.
Are you ignoring the fact that the artist in question specifically makes anti-left propoganda? Like it’s literally their entire identity to try (and fail) to make fun of leftist politics
Yes, I am. Depending on whom you base your ideas on what art is you can defend the case that art has two main components - its conceptual (the political or other ideas of the artist) and its perceptual part (the craftsmanship).
In this case the conceptual part of the work is completely removed, leaving only the craftsmanship. I see no problem in sharing this, and I see no possible slippery slope here.
In short, just because someone is a fascist does not mean they can’t be a good craftsman, and should not be seen and analyzed. Take for example Adolf Dassler’s Adidas.
Quite frankly, I would also love to see what the original cartoon looks like. Not because I would agree with it, but because I want to know how extreme rightwingers represent me (or us, I guess). I want to know how their propaganda looks like. And I personally believe we should all know and care about it, if we want to combat it successfully.
Are you deliberately trying to be incoherent?
You said:
And I asked you if you are ignoring the fact that the arts intended purpose is political.
Now u r on some shit about the aesthetic qualities which has nothing to do with your original argument.
It’s not “conflation” when the thing is itself literally what people take it as.
Also! Op was just asking a question dude. They weren’t condemning the meme. Ya gotta chill
I suggest looking through his twitter feed (not saying you didn’t) and paying close attention to the depiction of (not/) favoured men/ women. Twitter links warning In this cartoon (twitter) you can see the unnecessary sexualisation, while this one shows the exact opposite (cuz political enemy and black, idk). Also: Usual depiction of Joe Biden, heavy incel vibes and a masterpiece in bigotry. Make of that what you will, but I think stripping all his influence out of his cartoons would be more work than actually drawing new ones.___
Well, art is political by its very nature. It is inherently filled with the views and beliefs of the artist, and it’s important to point out the dangerous ones so people are aware and to prevent a potential slippery slope to radicalization. Or to prevent moments like that time Smash Mouth unknowingly retweeted art from a famous lolicon artist.
As for the rest, I completely agree. One of the ways to deal with a shitty person is to take their propaganda and meme the shit out of it.
Is it though? I once made a little tree out of wires as a birthday present because trees grow. How was that political? A friend of mine did a digital portrait of one of her friends for fun, how was that political? A whole genre of art is: “I saw a beautiful sight in nature and wanted to paint it”. Nothing political about that. I mean, “Art for art’s sake” was a whole movement. If it’s political by nature, removing the politics would mean that it’s not art anymore. And some musicians refuse to tell people what their music is about because they believe that everyone should give it their own personal meaning. But, as I said, a lot of art has no “meaning” besides: this looks/sounds nice/calming/cool/energizing.
Yes, it stems from the beliefs and feelings of the artists, but if we extend the meaning of politics so far that someone painting a mountainside transfers a political message, the term becomes pretty unusable.
what is beautiful is political. Valuing art based on beauty is political. Maybe your friend is ugly. Maybe they are not, and that’s why the portrait was done.
The act of creating is expressing power, and the expression of power and choices about who and what is valued is the core of “political.”
It isn’t always a clear cut thing, sometimes it’s a deeper philosophical idea and much less on the surface.
Maybe “political” is too far and “a collection of choices that reflect and potentially propagate culture or societal beliefs.” Is better.
Being able to make a choice is power. However small. And politics is all about power. Art is all about choices.
I mean, sure, but that absolutely devalues the meaning of the word. Absolutely every single thing you do is preceeded by a choice to do that, and choices are reflective of ones inner self, and if making a choice is power, and politics is all about power, then every single thing you do is political. Waking up before sunrise is political, waking up later is political, saying hello to your neighbour is political. Recording a guitar riff that just sounds cool is political. I created croissants yesterday, that was political.
Words are created to be used, and “political” cannot be used in any meaningful way if it refers to everything. While you probably could soundly argue that a child drawing random lines with crayons is political, it’s really pointless since it’s just pedantry that doesn’t add value, but rather devalues the word.
I did agree that using that word is probably going to far. I was merely trying to elaborate on the sentiment you were rejecting.
A slippery slope is a fallacy
Not weighing in on the other stuff, but I would disagree with the statement that art is political by its very nature. I think it really depends on the art.