All things related to Art! Poetry, painting, literature, visual, theater, movies, tv, music, media, culture, etc. Share your creativity or others', reviews, aesthetic theories, etc.
Other famous ones include John Lennon, John Baez, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley but I don't think linking their songs is necessary? :p
And that's just one form of art (music) there's also films, though that's pretty obvious, then mixtures of films and music, for example (film : The Great Dictator by Charlie Chaplin) http://youtu.be/WibmcsEGLKo
Then if you're thinking of books, George Orwell, that you cited is a political artist, since 1984 is what?
The way I see it, literature is obvious (Dickens is the first example that springs to mind, Issac Asimov in science fiction, CS Lewis as far as "educative politics" is concerned)
Moving on then, that leaves painting (Picasso?) although I confess I don't know much about painting so can't comment much though on principle I don't see why not.
Photography : same as painting.
Poetry I link to literature / music.
Lastly (though there may be other traditional forms of art I've forgotten) comedy. The most famous french comedian is Coluche who was famous for ... political satires http://youtu.be/9r22t6O8kQY
There's probably tons of "political" international or American or British comedians.
Can fiction be political? Does this mean that Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four are not works of art?
Apologies, didn't read this until now.
Personally? Of course fiction can be political, now rather than claim that Brave New World and 1984 were not works of art (which would require me to justify it, not that I can't, just that I'm lazy) I'd rather ask, why would anyone consider them not to be art?
Although, as always in discussions, maybe the first thing to do is to define "art"? ;)
Last edited by mtbturtle on February 5th, 2012, 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:inserted youtube code
Great debate here called 'How to Change the World' about whether or not great art is limited by tackling political issues: http://iai.tv/video/how-to-change-the-world
I'd rather ask, why would anyone consider them not to be art?
Because they're political. According to Wilde this makes them too useful, and according to Nabokov it lowers them to the level of ideological trash, and degrades the intrinsic value of the work by making it doctrinaire.
Many writers and other artists consider that art should focus on the personal point of view only (notably: Fyodor Dostoevsky, John Updike, Jack White). A great many people considered that Evelyn Waugh was compromising his artistic detachment by becoming too politically preachy. Joseph Conrad suggested that art should never attack the system because the only thing which could change the world was "a change in the hearts and minds of men", which fell more neatly into the personal scope of art.
Street art is often political, or preachy. Banksy's work is an example
When Paris Hilton released her CD in 2006, Banksy bought a copy, photocopied the information and changed it to reflect the undeserved celebrity surrounding her. Changing several images including one of her in front of a row of homeless individuals with the phrase "90% of success is just showing up." He then went into a shop and put them up without the shop knowing, copies were purchased by unknowing individuals.
He also done a storyboard for The Simpsons, which caused a stir. Apparently, the concept he used was created as a response to the rumors that the majority of “The Simpsons’” animation is done overseas in South Korea.
It's an intresting idea that art with a political motive is no longer art, but if that's the case, what motivations is 'true' art confined to?
I'd rather ask, why would anyone consider them not to be art?
Because they're political. According to Wilde this makes them too useful, and according to Nabokov it lowers them to the level of ideological trash, and degrades the intrinsic value of the work by making it doctrinaire.
Many writers and other artists consider that art should focus on the personal point of view only (notably: Fyodor Dostoevsky, John Updike, Jack White). A great many people considered that Evelyn Waugh was compromising his artistic detachment by becoming too politically preachy. Joseph Conrad suggested that art should never attack the system because the only thing which could change the world was "a change in the hearts and minds of men", which fell more neatly into the personal scope of art.
Lomax
Don't understand that.
Question : why would anyone consider art that is political not to be art?
Question : why would anyone consider art that is political not to be art?
Reply : because they are political.
me : ????????????
I once wondered this myself. I was reading "The Writing Life" by Annie Dillard and finished with the conclusion of Ars Gratia Artis (art for art's sake). At this time, I was struggling to justify the philosophy of Hegelian Materialism (I had been in a deep study of Marxism as well). This philosophy glorifies production and the empirical world. As a nihilist, I agreed that only the material was immediately important. I came to argue against this, however, as I studied deeper into existential nihilism, that the empirical is absurd and production is quite valueless in itself.
Therefore, if art is produced solely for the purpose of influencing society (as in Materialism), than it is merely another object of production and loses its value; If, however, art is an essential human quality (as Ayn Rand's Objectivism would hold), than it is an end in itself and not merely another means to an end. Thus, through teleology and tautology, I have come to respect the human mind as an end in itself, insignificant in the economy, but eternally significant to man himself.
Even Hegel himself, the Materialist, praised various forms of art as one of man's highest forms of expression, below only philosophy itself.
Last edited by mtbturtle on February 3rd, 2012, 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:fixed quote
I watched a really good talk on this subject a few days ago! The discussion is amazing and the panel is constituted by art historians, art philosophers and artists themselves. you can check it out on The Institute of Art and Ideas website: http://iai.tv/video/how-to-change-the-world
Thanks Emily, I did watch the video :) I particularly liked what the woman to the left (I've forgotten her name, sorry) was saying.
I realised the reason I was troubled by this question is that I take Nabokov to be something of a creative "genius" (sorry for the promiscuous use of that word) and I wanted to know why such a virtuoso would find problem with political art. I stumbled across this blog post, which I found enlightening, and the google-books-preview it links looks interesting as well.
This is how I'd summarize this debate for my own peace of mind:
It can and it can't.
Art can't not have a purpose. When you set out to make something you have a purpose. But the essence of what makes something "art" is certainly not purposeful or political. If you take that essence out, all you're left with is propaganda. This is perhaps the reason why some artists, given that they are concerned with art for its own sake, prefer to focus on refining that essence, and to minimize focus on concepts in their works. Kant said that the beautiful is that which pleases without concepts. But this is not to say that art can't have a project besides itself. It just doesn't have to.
Nabokov (like creative writing teachers everywhere) preferred the specific to the general (in novels). Images are more artistically affecting than ideas. Drama happens to people, not to polities. However, the Palliser novels by Anthony Trollope, are ABOUT politicians, they are fine books. Ayn Rand failed as a novelist because her characters were trite embodiments of her political notions rather than real people. As Wallace Stevens wrote:
Not Ideas About the Thing But the Thing Itself
by Wallace Stevens
At the earliest ending of winter, In March, a scrawny cry from outside Seemed like a sound in his mind.
He knew that he heard it, A bird's cry at daylight or before, In the early March wind.
The sun was rising at six, No longer a battered panache above snow . . . It would have been outside.
It was not from the vast ventriloquism Of sleep's faded papier mâché . . . The sun was coming from outside.
That scrawny cry—it was A chorister whose c preceded the choir. It was part of the colossal sun,
Surrounded by its choral rings, Still far away. It was like A new knowledge of reality.
----------------
Art can be political, as long as it is about the thing itself, rather than ideas about the thing.
Can Art and Literature be Political?
by Lomax on January 22nd, 2012, 3:20 pm
