What's worse, when someone makes some cringy hate political art, and yes I've seen it before. Most of my characters just hate everyone, well at least only hate certain other fictional characters in the story.
Content Creators and Speech and Expression
What's worse, when someone makes some cringy hate political art, and yes I've seen it before. Most of my characters just hate everyone, well at least only hate certain other fictional characters in the story.
quoting_mungo
Well-Known Member
Sometimes posting art does mean it’s probably best to read the room - if I had created a comic about a plane hijacking and crash right before 9/11 it would have been in extremely bad taste to post it in the direct aftermath. It’s probably not going to go over well to post it within, say, a week of the anniversary. There’s a school shooting storyline in the comic Jack that would have been insensitive to drop right in the wake of Sandy Hook, and so on.
That kind of awareness of current events (and to some degree history - there’s some callbacks to historical atrocities that should probably be handled with care or avoided altogether) is if not mandatory so at least a reasonable level of social appropriateness (not quite the word I want but I’ve been having massive trouble with words lately) to expect from, well, anyone. Not to say people are obligated to live by it, but to go on in blatant disregard of it does excuse some degree of “dude, not cool” from their viewers. It does not in my view excuse being nasty about it, by and large - politely saying “this might not be the best time” or “this shows some unfortunate parallels to [historical thing]” can be helpful to artists who might not be as aware of cultural significance of things they’ve grown up seeing in foreign media, for instance.
Again, I do think that the more of a platform you have the more of a duty you have to accept that you’ll sometimes be wrong, and to own your mistakes and try to correct them/make amends. If you’re willing to use your platform to spread the idea that the sky looks blue because the government put drugs in the water supply (hopefully that’s ridiculous enough that no one here thinks it’s in any way true or serious), you should also be willing to use it to say “oops, I was wrong, looks like the sky is blue because science and physics and shit.”
But people coming in to say it’s “too political” to say “trans* people are valid” in the wake of transphobic bullshit making the rounds can sod right off. Or go berate the transphobes who made it necessary. That’s also part of reading the room.
That kind of awareness of current events (and to some degree history - there’s some callbacks to historical atrocities that should probably be handled with care or avoided altogether) is if not mandatory so at least a reasonable level of social appropriateness (not quite the word I want but I’ve been having massive trouble with words lately) to expect from, well, anyone. Not to say people are obligated to live by it, but to go on in blatant disregard of it does excuse some degree of “dude, not cool” from their viewers. It does not in my view excuse being nasty about it, by and large - politely saying “this might not be the best time” or “this shows some unfortunate parallels to [historical thing]” can be helpful to artists who might not be as aware of cultural significance of things they’ve grown up seeing in foreign media, for instance.
Again, I do think that the more of a platform you have the more of a duty you have to accept that you’ll sometimes be wrong, and to own your mistakes and try to correct them/make amends. If you’re willing to use your platform to spread the idea that the sky looks blue because the government put drugs in the water supply (hopefully that’s ridiculous enough that no one here thinks it’s in any way true or serious), you should also be willing to use it to say “oops, I was wrong, looks like the sky is blue because science and physics and shit.”
But people coming in to say it’s “too political” to say “trans* people are valid” in the wake of transphobic bullshit making the rounds can sod right off. Or go berate the transphobes who made it necessary. That’s also part of reading the room.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
That's not what totalitarianism means...?
Conor's view, whether or not you agree with it, doesn't advocate for any system of government.
Personally I take an ambivalent view towards the idea that 'art is political'. I suppose it is true in some senses, in that what kinds of art are considered acceptable for exhibition and celebration is a strongly political subject.
Incidentally the colour of skies in paintings was actually regulated by Fascist political movements in Europe in the 20th century;
it was one of the criteria for recognising 'degenerate' art.
Anyway, ironically, many of the examples people have brought up of art that can have no political attachment, like femboy furry pornography, would fall foul of most countries' media and obscenity laws.
The production of this art actually is a political product of the relative freedom we enjoy to live in a different way to mainstream straight society.
Last edited:
Telnac
Fundamentalist Heretic
Art means to the artist what they're trying to express.
Art means to you what you think the artist is trying to express.
The two may not (and need not) be the same thing.
Artists have no less a right to express their political beliefs than anyone else. If you don't like it, don't follow them.
</$0.02>
Art means to you what you think the artist is trying to express.
The two may not (and need not) be the same thing.
Artists have no less a right to express their political beliefs than anyone else. If you don't like it, don't follow them.
</$0.02>
Frank Gulotta
Send us your floppy
I think you agree that seeing all the means of individual expression as political, speaks of a totalitarian mindset
If all art is political, then all art is propaganda
ConorHyena
From out of the rain.
in a way it is.
Frank Gulotta
Send us your floppy
What a sad view, not to mention wrong
oappo
Well-Known Member
Even so, I don't see how that's relevant. Technically speaking, a very great deal of our world is political. But you have to draw the line somewhere lest, as you put forth, it dilutes the definition and use of politics. Things like colour associations are not directly political to a large degree in the year 2021. And politics doesn't enter the mind of most people when picking them for whatever reason either.
If everything is political, then that's the baseline of our lives. That's normal. Something being exceptionally political(i.e., directly related to politics to a reasonable degree) will still distinguish itself among everything else. On the other hand, in many things (including entertainment & recreation), real-life politics are often in the background or irrelevant.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
You'd be wrong then; I don't agree with that.
Opposition to state control over art is a political position- and it's anti-totalitarian.
Our right to make and share art is a political freedom we are lucky have. Creatives like Oscar Wilde, Max Ernst and Egon Schiele did not have these rights we enjoy.
So I think that's the context in which you could say 'Art' as an entire field is political.
You're attacking a straw-man. Where did I say all art is intended to make people into extremists?
My only point is that what is and is not viewed as acceptable in Art has always been a strongly politicised question. We fortunately live in a world where we enjoy greater freedoms- although obscenity laws still exist.
If it helps you, we might also say 'An individual news paper article may or many not be political, but having a free press is political,'.
Frank Gulotta
Send us your floppy
That would be like saying walking is political because we have a right to walk.
Simo
Professional Watermelon Farmer
In a very real sense, it is. After all, the 1st amendment of the US constitution covers both free speech and assembly. And you're probably going to need to walk, if you're going to 'assemble'.
Frank Gulotta
Send us your floppy
This is just silly.In a very real sense, it is. After all, the 1st amendment of the US constitution covers both free speech and assembly. And you're probably going to need to walk, if you're going to 'assemble'.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I think I can help you understand by comparing art to newspapers.
Not every story in a news paper could be described as political.
But the idea of a free press that publishes news is highly political.
Not every piece of art in a gallery could be described as political.
But the idea of Art with a capital 'A' is highly political.
@oappo also hits the nail on the head. Politics is part of daily life. Artists' creativity will inevitably interact with politics; is it really reasonable for us to expect artists to eschew political expression?
Art is self expression, so the idea that making political statements contaminates or detracts from Art is a bit silly.
So that answers the thread OP rather nicely.
Frank Gulotta
Send us your floppy
Na, doesn't do it. I think my own comparison has shown that this idea is silly
Moreover if you think something is political because you're allowed to do it by the government, you're proving my point that this indicates a totalitarian mindset. Incredibly enough, there ARE a bunch of stuff that governments have absolutely no business trying to interfere with. I think certain people have fought a long time so politics could be kept the hell out of their bedrooms. Now we're just going right back at it and claiming that sex too is political?
oappo
Well-Known Member
That's the opposite of what I'm saying. The amount of politics is so far removed from and irrelevant to our daily lives that it isn't political in a practice.
Last edited:
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Let's take an example that's been mentioned several times in this thread. Some users have stated that it upsets them when artists or art galleries have the phrase 'BLM' in their twitter bios.
This is a political movement. It's also part of all our daily lives now though, so expecting not to come across it when we view art isn't very realistic.
You should consider the possibility that people can disagree with your views without secretly supporting totalitarian governments.
You're doing the equivalent of accusing a mother who tells her children to share their toys of being a communist, because the redistribution of assets is part of the communist mindset.
Like, it's a bit silly Frank.
quoting_mungo
Well-Known Member
Not to mention that sometimes the artists who have “BLM” or “trans lives matter” in their bios are POC or trans*, or have loved ones who are. Telling someone that they can’t advocate for a group they’re fucking part of because they should be apolitical to appeal to the widest possible market is... gauche, to say the least.
Like... I’ve had someone defend “only two genders” in direct conversation with me in the past. Is it too political to tell them to leave my genderqueer ass out of that topic? :V
oappo
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say BLM is part of our daily lives. It's largely faded from the general public. And how involved you may personally be in it is a choice obviously.
This brings me back to what I and others were saying before. If someone feels strong about something, obviously they're a higher chance it'll come up in their content or accounts to some degree. That's not a guarantee either though. Some artists are ok bringing up those type of things, some would rather keep that off their art accounts. How political a person is varies. Expecting to not come across that sort of stuff largely depends on who you're following and how big the issue is for the general public.
Last edited:
Yakamaru
Woof? Woof
Breathe? Stop with that political talk right now, mister. There are children who are pres- THEY ARE BREATHING TOO? MEIN GOTT, THE HERESY! IT'S EVERYWHERE.
Here's my take on it: An art piece is not political unless the artist intends it to be. End of discussion on my end as I have more important things to do than deal with pointless squabbles over the internet.
Here's my take on it: An art piece is not political unless the artist intends it to be. End of discussion on my end as I have more important things to do than deal with pointless squabbles over the internet.
AniwayasSong
Well-Known Member
I never venture into Twitter (getting that much muck outta my fur isn't worth the adventure), so can't personally say one way or the other. I merely know it by reputation of others sharing their experiences.
For myself, I am only offended when a 'Content Creator' has a different opinion on something (usually political), and then rage against any/all who don't SHARE THEIR OPINION, to the point I've literally blacklisted six now, and think that's six too damned many.
We're all human and we all have opinions and feelings. I can happily discuss anything with anyone so long as mutual respect is adhered to. Like the Pres./Hate the Pres.? Fine and dandy! We can talk about different policies and stuff, then compare notes about what's going on in the world and how 'We' would maybe do things. Enjoy the discussion and then part company on amicable terms.
There's something about the Furry Fandom however, that seems to give folks some sort of justification to absolutely lose their shit and rage against anyone that's different.
I find this ironically humorous because hey, we're FURRIES, and the rest of the g-damned world looks down their noses and throws their angst against us! Makes perfect sense we tear each other apart from within, right?
If Writers or Artists want to vent, blow off steam about this-that-the-other? Go for it! Get it off yer chest, calm down, take some deep breaths, carry on!
If Writers or Artists want to insult/condemn others?
They can go to whatever self-privileged Hell will accept their worthless Souls, fars I'm concerned.
Being a Writer or Artists doesn't grant anyone the authority or validity to behave like an ass.
Frank Gulotta
Send us your floppy
But you're agreeing with my point here without even realizing it. Indeed a parent who would encourage his or her kids to share wouldn't be political (especially not communist, since in such a case there would be a drastic shortage of toys, no orange juice, and half the children would be permanently grounded). But someone who insists that everything is political (that is to say someone with a totalitarian mindset) might see it that way. The kicker is that I don't, but someone who would say art is by definition political, very much might!
quoting_mungo
Well-Known Member
There’s some strong feelings that seem to be getting stirred up here. My perception is that the grounds for that is similar to the grounds for people getting their feathers ruffled by artists expressing their values in the first place: differences in where we draw the line as to what constitutes “political.”
Ultimately, yes, there is some thread of politics in everything; if nothing else so because they influence how we’re socialized and that will have an impact on our art. Yes, even random furry dick. Is this a level of “political” that you’re going to see anyone pitching a fit over? Probably not.
So the whole topic comes down to “how political is too political?” I don’t think there’s a simple answer to that. While agreeing to disagree is an excellent way of resolving many differences, there is always the potential for an ideological position to be... more than “just their opinion.” I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask that people “agree to disagree” in all circumstances. The Leopards Eating People’s Faces party can be objectively wrong and agreeing to disagree with them is kinda silly.
Ultimately, yes, there is some thread of politics in everything; if nothing else so because they influence how we’re socialized and that will have an impact on our art. Yes, even random furry dick. Is this a level of “political” that you’re going to see anyone pitching a fit over? Probably not.
So the whole topic comes down to “how political is too political?” I don’t think there’s a simple answer to that. While agreeing to disagree is an excellent way of resolving many differences, there is always the potential for an ideological position to be... more than “just their opinion.” I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask that people “agree to disagree” in all circumstances. The Leopards Eating People’s Faces party can be objectively wrong and agreeing to disagree with them is kinda silly.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I'm going to make a prediction here.
The more strongly somebody argues that it is unprofessional to mix artistic and political expression,
the more likely they are to complain that 'cancel culture', prevents artists from voicing political views they agree with.
'Art is political' is a pretty milk toast opinion Frank; you will find it is the default opinion of Art historians.
Remember, this is not a statement that every drawing in history has a specific political goal. It is the observation that Artistic expression has always been the subject of political contention. Indeed objections to Artists mixing political and artistic expression by many users here show that there is still active concern about the influence Artists possess in political discussion.
It doesn't make sense to think that anybody who agrees with that is a 'totalitarian', any more than it is sensible to conclude that it makes them a 'monarchist' or an 'anarchist'; nothing can meaningfully be deduced about their opinions on the form that the state should take from their view that Art is politically relevant.
It is okay for you to admit that you chose the wrong word to describe your idea.
The more strongly somebody argues that it is unprofessional to mix artistic and political expression,
the more likely they are to complain that 'cancel culture', prevents artists from voicing political views they agree with.
'Art is political' is a pretty milk toast opinion Frank; you will find it is the default opinion of Art historians.
Remember, this is not a statement that every drawing in history has a specific political goal. It is the observation that Artistic expression has always been the subject of political contention. Indeed objections to Artists mixing political and artistic expression by many users here show that there is still active concern about the influence Artists possess in political discussion.
It doesn't make sense to think that anybody who agrees with that is a 'totalitarian', any more than it is sensible to conclude that it makes them a 'monarchist' or an 'anarchist'; nothing can meaningfully be deduced about their opinions on the form that the state should take from their view that Art is politically relevant.
It is okay for you to admit that you chose the wrong word to describe your idea.
Last edited:
Frank Gulotta
Send us your floppy
Notice how that's not at all the same thing as saying that all art is political?
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Conor said 'Art is political', and disagreed with you about the definition of what 'Art' even is.
So I suspect you are both talking about different things anyway, Frank.
Do you concede that you cannot deduce, from these opinions, whether or not somebody is 'totalitarian' ?