Is all art inherently political?

>why do people think saying something makes it true? am i supposed to take this guy's word for it?
Because they're fascists. One of the cornerstones of the fascist ideology is the creation of a cult of unquestioning. As such, woke Twitter faggots are the most effective fascists of our time.

I really want OP to be wrong but I have a hard time proving it. Weren’t the Greks political when sculpting Gods? Wasn’t Rafael political when he painted the School of Athens? Point to me one piece of art that isn’t political, prove to me so that there is no doubt left

inherency is a fallacy.

we indians might sometimes shit in streets but DONT EVER fucking mistake us for pakis goddamn

this is unironically offensive to fascists

Attached: Tsunami_by_hokusai_19th_century.jpg (1024x688, 263K)

All art is inherently political, but there's a difference between it being inherently political because the work of art inevitably reflects the world-view of the artist in various complicated ways, and it being political because it carries a central explicit political message which is not to any significant extent subordinated to aesthetic considerations.

A political examination of art has nothing to do with the experience of it. The creation of propaganda has nothing to do with the creation of art.

Attached: 2852440b491d5cc854eebd74e66fc4a0.jpg (467x615, 63K)

More or less anything can be viewed by trough a political lens, so sure. but I could still understand why someone might dislike a political subtext being brought to the forefront of some pop culture thing to show how woke and progressive the staff is.

Maybe he means this in some abstract way but political music exists and it fucking sucks.

death of ivan ilyich maybe?
thousand cranes by kawabata?

Politics is LARPing for ugly people and always has been, surprisingly an ugly pajeet like kumail thinks it's important

Good, I have no issue with upsetting fascists.

that poster is probably entirely aware the dude is paki and called him indian on purpose because pakis hate being called indian as much as indians hate being called paki. i think you got epic trolled and he didn't even intend to epic troll you in particular

art is about the Real, the ultimately Real, which in our decadent, late-phase culture is the political since we've exiled all our transcendental referents. When you reduce everything to the material-historical, you delude yourself into seeing everything as political, especially those things that are entirely outside the realm of the political since they have no place in your parochial metaphysic.

This is how I feel. Sontag's against interpretation is a really compelling essay on the inherent politicism of all art due to it's place in an unceasing conversation

>t. 100lb skinnyfat soiboi

>the ultimately Real
By this, do you mean the ideal, i.e. the not-real?

Just because anyone can interpret anything any way they want doesn't mean that all art is inherently political

>mfw you're actually right about the skinnyfat part

Attached: Me.png (645x773, 11K)

As I recall the original title is "Great Wave off Kanagawa". The reason why he might have depicted a wave off Kanagawa specifically though is in part because of its position along the Tokaido road, an extremely important travelling route connecting Tokyo to Kyoto (in other words, linking the political capital with the economic capital). Furthermore you have Mount Fuji in the background, a constant theme in Hokusai's prints, and then you might examine the position of the men in the boats, which brings to mind economic inequalities, etc.

My point is that art is temporal, and therefore always possesses, not necessarily at the forefront, certain political implications and conclusions.

>political music exists and it fucking sucks.
19th century nationalism is responsible for some great music. Just because the musical traditions inspired by communism and whatever the hell the American right stands for doesn't make all political music bad.

Are you in your 70s? Your understanding of fascism is unironically worse than the average boomers.

Fascists unironically consider this unrepentant assertion of hollow culture to be their enemy. Fascism isn't the cult of unquestioning, it's the idea of an anchored brotherhood being stronger than the sum of their parts. If you want to actually use that word correctly, it's not that hard to pick up a book by one of the people who actually believed in fascism and see what their arguments were in favor of it rather than getting your definition from the Twitter account of whatever emaciated vegan won't leave your local book store despite not actually reading anything besides YA fiction.

Politics is logistics for governance.

i was playing it up, but never underestimate potential ignorance. besides its kinda understandable mixing that cunt for indian, since north indians and pakis are essentially the same

Music can only vaguely be political.
lyrics aren't music

art + politics = propaganda, so if it is political then it is no longer art
art must be apolitical to be art

Everything is political user. The way you close the door can be fascist.

Not hating or anything but this kind of reasoning is pure bullcrap, the word art doesn't imply any other meaning than art itself. Think about music, all scholars would agree that music begins with cavemen and rocks and whatever, whats political about that? This kind of commentary are just low effort attempts to grab attention, trying to sound deep and self-righteous witout backing up anything said.

i think people conflate "everything CAN BE political" with "everything IS political". just because it's political to you doesn't mean it was written to be intentionally political or that it's necessarily political to someone else. saying everything IS political rather than CAN BE is simply a reflection of how that individual chooses to observe things, nothing else.

I am currently looking at a painting of a sunset in my living room, and I can't find anything political about it, maybe I am retarded.

vocaroo.com/i/s01NHKNngkNI

idealists take the ideal as the real, so if you're an idealist then that is what the real would correspond with. Materialists take the material as the real, the ultimately real. For a madhyamaka buddhist emptiness is what is ultimately real, whereas for a vendantist you could say it is Brahman. I'm critiquing our culture for taking the material and historical as the ultimately real and interpreting everything beyond those categories through hermeneutics of suspicion, bourgeois confabulation. In that reading there is no place for art or transcendence, and so everything is dragged down into the terror of history, class struggle or the machinations of capital or whatever

>left-wingers before achieving cultural hegemony
Plato was a totalitarian for believing art should have a moral purpose

>left-wingers after achieving cultural hegemony
All art should have a moral purpose

What did they mean by this?

it's a lot easier to smash idols than it is to open a channel to the gods

Just because you CAN read it as depicting the economic inequalities of fishermen doesn't mean you should.

politics is gay

art > p*ltics

Everything can be related to everything. It's not complicated. People like to hang onto the politics angle (which is much more narrow than they think) because it lets them feel better about pushing agendas and 'cancelling' other people.

What about artistic propaganda? Alexander Nevsky and the Aeneid come to mind.

When will /pol/ realize that social liberals and woke-capitalists are not "the left"?

I would imagine the works within the Aesthetic movement were a-political, but I suppose the movement itself was still political...still, what a tiring way to look at things

I've always been a bit confused by this sentiment though, what exactly is meant by "politics" in thoughts like these? Like, the broadest possible definition of politics, ie decisions that affect members of a group?

When will tankies realize that not everyone who dislikes anything remotely left wing is /pol/?

>agree with the central moral principles that cause people to embrace leftist politics
>disagree with the how society should ultimately be organized to fulfill that moral ideal
>cooperate more often than not and revel in the same political victories

From the outside the difference is negligible. The most the trve left has done to hurt liberals is writing some mean graffiti.

This could be a reply to this

can I get a quick rundown on the political subtexts of The Hungry Hungry Caterpillar?

It's an allegory for transgender and homosexual people

>b-but we don't want them!
too bad, faggot

Lit is a society of non creators and autistic life denying escapist larpers so obviously their conception of art is skewered. Of course all art is at a minimum political which is not to say that all art ought to be reduced to politics. zoon politikon will ultimately endow all his creations with a political dimension. Art is meant to be seen and if not (like certain frescoes in certain italian cathedrals) that in itself is a political break from the norm.

At the very minimum its a text about basic overconsumption and greed. Its meant to teach children not to be greedy. Even a retard could tell you that

>420
sounds about right considering you'd have to be high to go around positing things an asserting this or that while also expecting people to take you seriously despite not giving me reasons as to why i should agree with your assertions

People are idiots. Of course you can always view art from a political point of view, if you're doing a sociological analysis or something like that. But it's not necessay to do it all the time.

I just gave you a reason.

What is "necessary"? Thats a political question. Seriously are people on this board really this willfully ignorant

You mean artful?

>ethics and preference is politics
holy...so this is the power of naive reductionism

Are you trying to say zoon politikon and the "political" thing he is referring to are the same thing? that it works at the same level? lmao

Political art is at best a poster and at worst a slogan.
Art is about aesthetic enjoyment and aesthetics alone.

no all you did was say things and expect me to believe you.
>Lit is a society...
an assertion with no evidence to support it, even if I agree
>Of course all art...
again, this is just asserting itself. still no reasoning behind why i should agree
>zoon politikon will soon....
says who? you? again why should I believe this?
>Art is meant to be seen...
your last sentence, and just another assertion with nothing telling me why you think this. is this seriously what you consider convincing argument? positing shit as true and expecting people to agree? jesus christ, your life must be difficult if you act like this all the time and don't see the fault in it

only if you are a leftist

politics is religion of the opiates

Idk is some boomer painting pictures of border collies really political?

Absolutely disgusting. Cringe.

Based.

Bloody postmodernists, *bdough*, death of the author spawn of satan —bull pucky

fuck no

Where's the politics in caveman drawings

Attached: art.png (1600x1157, 3.44M)

Attached: 2014_CKS_01528_0023_000(ivan_aivazovsky_storm_on_the_black_sea).jpg (3200x2081, 313K)

Marxists are irrelevant LARPers that will be thrown to the dogs as soon as they dare criticise intersectional orthodoxy or the narcissism of woke consumerist enjoyment. The only thing leftists do nowadays is put forward apologies for the excesses of the liberal left. Leftists deny eternity, for them the past is nothing but clutter standing in the way of total equality(ie. Levelling of all particularity) and total liberation(ie. Mindless hedonism). Leftism is the denial of the logos and the denial of politics. Leftists cant create good art because they are unable to see beyond their own bodies and the social identities attached to them. They dont want to be challenged by art, they dont understand tragedy, they want their every neuroses to be validated and represented by the spectacle
Face it, anyone who cares about preserving high culture and the liberty that allows one to act as a free thinking individual is already on the ranks of the radical right.

Fuck off Libtard

wow so brave

>democrats are the real transphobes
kek

Most pseud post I've ever seen.
IQ 70-90: celebrity gossip
IQ 91-105: politics
IQ 106-115: science
IQ 116+: art
politics is fucking retarded. even politicians only use it as a means to an end.

No. That's just an excuse for boring hacks who don't have an identity outside politics and unable to think any deeper.

>please stop calling out our propaganda

Based

>the actual, non-liberal, left being about "muh moral principles" and not just about the self interests of anyone who isn't a billionair buisiness owner or middle management cog

Another classic case of redefining something to suit a narrative.

Attached: 9E1D8834-7B67-496F-BE05-22ED723E0787.jpg (1280x720, 36K)

Centering their art around productivity (hunting) rather than individual expression is politic, faggot.

>IQ 116+: art
daily reminder that there's literally no reason to consider current art part of the same tradition and deserving of the same prestige attached to art produced in previous centuries

it's just people doing a different thing that should be judged on its own merit instead of pretending to be doing the same as people who still believed in craft, truth and beauty

art has always had a relationship with politics but it's wrong to assert that all art is political. You can go back and cite ancient works of political art and say art has always been political, but that doesn't mean all the art being created at that time was political. It would be more accurate to say art has always been religious but that's more complicated to defend.

A 4 year old fingerprinting giraffes is not creating something political.

>yeah but modern art isn't real art xDDD amiright lol fuck pomo
Literally doesn't matter. Just like people who say "there's no good music created nowadays" and it turns out they only listen to top 40 garbage. There's plenty of great stuff nowadays, it's just lost in a sea of shit. The gems of the past have already been sifted from the chaff for us. Go to a goodwill and look through their books, find some paperbacks from the 1970s. Tell me if that's "belief in craft, truth, and beauty."
Now leave.

>it's impossible to make art / media which is wholly apolitical, therefore it is an unreasonable desire for media which is not overtly political

user said previous centuries, not decades

Attached: 5094EF61-10EC-4DD4-BB52-A8C957064E8E.jpg (220x265, 8K)

Middle managers and billionaires are woke intersectional leftists. The only way to defy the status quo: fascism and right wing populism.

They're using a characteristically broad definition of political. Common in radical/revolutionist ideology. Only weird that it's mainstream.

it’s really not hard to find non- political art. Self- portraits. Landscapes. Depictions of personal piety. Nudes. Nothing political about most of them unless you massively twist their meaning

Attached: C76F8E4D-7295-413E-8958-6A28312DC090.jpg (779x1200, 92K)

I like you.

please define "politics" then you fucking retard

>That guy who tries to sound smart by demanding you define complex concepts and then finds holes in your definition

Pretty much this. This is why twitter is such trash. Pic Related is an excellent piece of art...and is non-political

Attached: Bouguereau - The Horseback Ride.jpg (2559x3508, 3.61M)

>Who is Socrates

And he was executed (justly, I might add) for being a cunt.

woahh relax friend.

No. That’s retarded

No. There was art in times and places where people weren't concerned with politics and didn't get to vote.

Consider becoming a fascist. You'll be motivated to eat more and excercise.

fuck me for wanting clearly defined concepts and ideas right?
this is why fore chann dot org can never be a forum for serious discussion, because most of its people are just leftovers from Yea Forums that carry with them its residue of immutable edge but now just have pretensions towards intellectualism.

Only if you are a social justice warrior, which Kumail is.

Apolitical is political. Just like atheism is a religion. It's so typical being atypical in today's world. Amoral is another man's moral, like Epicureanism. To be asexual is to have sexual desire for the No One. And so on, etc.

this is a fucking boring painting that is not an art.

Um excuse me but that is clearly meant to portray the dominance women have over men

This is such a brainlet post. Is politics an eternal category? Was pre-agricultural society a political one? Was there politics before homo sapiens? Could we transition to a post-political society? How is a retreat from society a political move? How is refusal to play a move in the game? If you define refusal to play as a move in the game, maybe you've being a dipshit dogmatist? Fucking retard.

This post is really interesting actually. not only is it really stupid but it's a special kind of stupid that's symptomatic of a lot of things happening rn in mainstream society.

Just throwing this out in the dark there but the kind of thinking that this user exhibits is not unlike the same kind of thing that's responsible for populist notions of "post truthism", and flat earth deniers.

oh shoot i conflated two things: holocaust deniers and flat earthers. I meant to say flat earthers not flat earth deniers

I actually '''respect" sjws for understanding eveything is a political issue. They might be snivelling antiintellectual consumer slaves who actively relish victimhood, but at least they understand something important. Everything is political and all politics are identity politics. Classical liberals are marks. Orthodox muh anti idpol marxism is just an internet sect composed solely of self hating leftypol trannies. I am a fascist because i am willing to fight for my truth

it's not stupid though, skepticism is important to advance dogma closer to the truth. just laugh at idiots who's trying to abuse this dialect.

what are the politics of the mona lisa

Attached: 402px-Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg (402x599, 71K)

the wool that constantly managed to get pulled over your retarded eyes is the expansion of what 'political' means (usually with religious and cultural values). any given piece of artwork may entail a political aspect, but politics does not entail every piece of artwork. and no, just because you can interpret an artwork through a political lens does not mean that it is political.

The politically-possessed will say it is very political, because the artist chose to depict members of a certain sex, at a certain age, in what appears to be a certain social/wealth class, in a certain climate. And in a certain sense, they're correct: in our taste for finer things the social and civil factors influencing our consciousness clearly express themselves. Social and civil preferences clearly come through in that artist's painting. However, these people fail to acknowledge the experience of beauty, which suppresses these factors into the subconscious. And some of them tend to get ahead of themselves and start to read implications into the artwork that just aren't there.

yeah but this is not your every day ordinary skepticism, this is skepticism on another grade and level. Originally I thought the signalling of a "post truth" society could be interesting because originally I thought "oh this is a whole bunch of people that are essentially neitzscheans that could be interesting" but now I'm starting to think it's not even that well thought out. I'm starting to think it's just empty cognitive dissonance masquerading as a serious intellectual skepticism.

define what you mean by saying that art "is" something or another.

I'll let you in on something. I was being ironic. I think it's called reducing to absurdity.