next »

[michaelplzno]

So it is that we are discussing the big topics of the day. There seems to be a crowd that is making the claim that all art, and thus all existence, is politics. Let's have a look, shall we?

We are at a fork in the road: is the concept of politics like the atoms of the world, intrinsically embedded in everything we do, see, and think? Or are some things political and some things not political?

I know my own point of view on the topic, so I'll dig into examples:

Let's look at two kinds of art. On one side we have things like
"Harry Potter," (JK Rowling)
"SpongeBob SquarePants," (Stephen Hillenburg) or
soap operas (Written by some kind of computer?)

On the other side, things like
"To Kill a Mockingbird,"(Harper Lee)
"Born in the USA" (Bruce Springsteen) and
"La Guernica" (Pablo Picaso).

Now let's look at the "all art is political," framework, in which case we must analyze "SpongeBob" with the same stringent political framework as "Guernica." The politics of "Guernica" are obvious to the point of being in your face, an F-you to fascism. The politics of "SpongeBob" are not so clear, something about capitalism being good? Protect the seas? Your dish sponge should be treated with respect? The "everything is political" view is at a loss for the sheer sugary puffery that is "SpongeBob." It doesn't fit that framework. But for the sake of argument, let's go further down the "all political" rabbit hole.

In this "all art is politics" world we can say that "Harry Potter" is some kind of anti-trans manifesto due to the author's liking of some spurious tweets on trans issues. And so too, "Born in the USA" is weaker politically because it is the lukewarm musings of a straight white man lecturing us all on America's faults. When a soap opera plays on morality it is as weighty as Mockingbird's political examination of the south's injustice towards slaves, though of course soap operas are comically fictitious while Mockingbird is based on realism.

"Don't Have a Guernica Man"

And so, for politics to be everything, politics becomes a sort of "atom" of thought. We see it in every action, every facet of life. When SpongeBob talks to Mr. Crabs about getting a higher salary, this is in fact a Marxist attempt to empower the worker (Even though crabs may hit the beloved sponge with a frying pan for making the attempt). Even still, such a jape is just as political as Picaso when he did his piece about a very real Nazi massacre.

Indeed, everything is atoms, and in this way, the "all politics" camp puts itself into a bottle:
Atoms are exceedingly trivial things, though they do make up everything, they are insignificant. By grasping at making everything political, it shrinks what it means to make a political statement to the size of an atom. In fact, one cannot help but be political. Even if one tries to avoid making political art, doing so is its own political statement.

Also, to think of everything as atoms all the time is not feasible or useful for day-to-day experiences. When one eats a meal, do we remark on the excellent atomic composition of the food? In a way, but to start diagraming chemical formulas when discussing a meal is a bit silly, and only feasible by extreme experts on atoms and chemicals.

You see, if everything is political, nothing is political. Much like how if everything is atoms nothing is atoms. Yes, an expert can devise an experiment to reveal the atoms in the very fabric of everything, but such analysis is so detailed and far from human experience that the atoms are more abstract than real to the very humans who are made of atoms.

My choice is to view only some art as political. Let's look at art in its own unique idiom, right? "SpongeBob" was never meant to be a pointed political statement. Just like how candies are never meant to be a whole meal. And when we try to put a work of candy, like "Harry Potter" through the political lens, it is putting the book through a paper shredder. It was never meant to stand up to such deep scrutiny. Potter is a fanciful yarn about magical powers.

Continuing down that road, some people hear "Born in the USA" and think, "wow that is such a patriotic song!" That too puts Bruce in the shredder because you are analyzing a meaty piece of political art as if it were just a sugary pop song, without even listening to the lyrics.

To put Rowling through the same ringer as Bruce is absurd and even unfair. It doesn't produce good insight into the art, it doesn't help generate new art, and it doesn't even feel good. So, please choose the right lens for the right kind of art.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Thoughts?

(Edited to add more AI art)

[Foxwarrior]

I prefer "all art is propaganda" over "all art is politics", because propaganda is more fun to say. I remember seeing a fun analysis video where the guy argued that JK Rowling's thing where she had Dobby be the one weird house-elf who didn't enjoy slavery ultimately stems from Rowling's own political beliefs that society was fine actually and doesn't need to be changed at all in any meaningful way. As for the Spongebob example, I tragically have not seen the clip but I think you're splitting it too finely. A story (or, even, a game system) is ultimately a structure of presenting a situation, someone doing something, and then there being consequences. If you make a story about asking for a raise and then getting bonked in the face with a frying pan for your troubles and ultimately deciding it's fine to be paid what you're getting, that's not a story about how great it is to empower the worker followed by a frying pan gag, that's a story about how the workers might think they want to be empowered but it's not worth the trouble.

Sometimes "all art is propaganda" does annoy me, even though I believe it... my political beliefs just aren't intense enough to make the really exciting art 

[LinsonLime]

I agree that all art isn't "politics", but I disagree that all art isn't "political" (or that it can't be advantageous to interpret all kinds of art through a political lens). Unless we're living in an anarchist society, everything we do, say, think, and create is affected by "politics". Someone who lived in Yugoslavia will likely have a very different outlook on the world, and make wildly different art than someone who lived in the USA during the same time period. Not all art is intended to be a political statement, but all art will inevitably be derived from "politics" in some way, thus becoming "political".

Mark Fisher's book "Capitalist Realism" does a great job of showcasing how viewing art through a political lens -- even if the art wasn't intended to be "political" -- can lead to greater insights, not just about the art but also about the time period it was created in.

Thanks for taking the time to write all this! It was a good read, very thoughtful!

[michaelplzno]

You two seem to be in the "all politics" camp, which is fine, but it makes politics small and unimportant.

I tried to read your "Capitalist Realism" book and noticed pain in my body while I was struggling to force myself to listen to that windbag.

[Golds]

I agree that all art is politics, in the sense that politics encompasses a spectrum from the explicitly political, down to things like office politics and interpersonal politics. It all depends on the framing. I like your point that "if everything is political, nothing is political". In that sense, it's important to just be clear what you're referring to when you say something is political. At what point in the spectrum is it?

There's probably a blurry point at which something goes from being nebulous wishywashy art, that is not expressing anything terribly political, to having some sort of message intended to change the viewer's mind on something.

[michaelplzno]

I acknowledge that there is a spectrum of tiny political statements vs big political statements. Also, there is "politics" in the curation process of what kind of art gets made, and what kind of art is shown to people.

However, there is a cheapness to political art, almost meaning it is easier to make than pure art that isn't designed to persuade the viewer into something. You could say that art which doesn't persuade is "wishy washy" but also its less gimmicky.

I did the game "Strategery 2012" which was extremely easy to write, I just took sound bites from politicians and mashed them up into a strategy game.

You can play it here:



So, I think among making politics smaller, it is also misguided to say that politics makes art somehow better in any way.

[Golds]

However, there is a cheapness to political art, almost meaning it is easier to make than pure art that isn't designed to persuade the viewer into something. You could say that art which doesn't persuade is "wishy washy" but also its less gimmicky.

On the contrary, some of my favorite art is art that doesn't present an explicit message, but instead expresses a mood. I'm mood over formalist artistic meaning 100%

[salade]

All art is politics, and art is only good when it is the politics I agree with. Objective fact.

[michaelplzno]

I feel ya, I often say "That is objectively true because its my opinion and I always speak the Truth"