This is a discussion moved from a different topic. There will be disagreements here, but keep it civil.
I’m not interested in getting into a whole thing, this is clearly not an argument anyone wants to bring up.
This is an art community. Asking people to leave politics out of it is not a sentiment I can cosign. All art is political, period. If a work of art is saying something, it’s saying something. Nobody has to participate in any conversation they don’t want to, and nobody has a gun to their head. If someone finds they’ve had enough of a conversation, I think any reasonable person would agree it’s a real piece of shit move to go dragging things on in spite of someone clearly disengaging.
But this is an attitude I’ve heard floated on virtually every small community I’ve ever been a part of, and I just want to caution against following that attitude because the end result is insular communities that stagnate and toxify until everyone fucks off except the people made of literal pond scum.
TL;DR Nobody should have to have an argument against their will, but small avalanches prevent big ones. Trust me, you do not want a community where this stuff is restricted speech. They do not last.
You’re welcome to your opinion and all, but it’s generally agreed upon that sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.
A comic about small mentally deficient furry biotoys eating discarded fentanyl pops thinking they’re food and shitting themselves to death while speaking in baby-talk doesn’t really have much to say about the sociopolitical climate, if you ask me. In fact, it doesn’t seem to have much of a deeper meaning at all other than that the artist is bored and has nothing better to do with their time.
But I am merely one of the unwashed proletariat so never had the money to spare on a degree in intersectional biotoy art studies.
Let’s not jump into absolutes, that’s like saying all games are political when we have stuff like tetris lol
Seriously tho, how did an art about alley fluffys derail so bad lmao
All art IS political. It doesn’t matter if it’s intended to make a political statement, all art is necessarily a reflection of the context it is created in.
If that is all the futher you wish to interrogate the art you consume, that’s your prerogative.
For what it’s worth, I don’t have an academic background in this shit either.
If i create a drawing of a gummy bear saying “butts” with a huge disclaimer on the side of the pic saying “this is just a gummy bear saying “butts”, there is no political message or intent ingrained in this pic, if by some reason you think there is you are absolutely wrong” Then whatever political meaning someone takes from it would be objectivelly wrong and would be isolated from the art piece and be the person who came to that conclusions “headcanon” of what the piece represents.
Just because i can say “hm yes this drawing of a tiny horse playing with blocks really do tell we live in a society” does not make it so lol
What? That would be an EXPLICITLY political statement. Being specifically and actively apolitical is itself a political stance, even if you are doing it in an effort to avoid doing so. To quote Neil Peart, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
Also authorial intent has nothing to do with the themes that can be found in art aside from being the animus for arranging the piece in the first place. If I write a song about how much I love hard boys doing sweaty work, it doesn’t have to matter what I mean by that. I can say I’m referring to emotionally stoic men performing manual labor in silence.
But jazz is made twice. Once when it’s played, and again when it’s heard.
It’s not a bad thing. It’s just a way to look at art.
How long is now?
I’ll stand by my point that a “Pipe can be just a Pipe”, if any political meaning is derived from a work without authoral intent to be so, then it’s only meaningfull to the one consuming it and is no more valid than a “headcanon” of the art piece
My main disagreement there I guess would be the notion that it’s only useful internally. The political implications of a work of art are as much a part of discussing it as the moral or canonical ones.
I agree that a cigar can just be a cigar. I reject the notion that there is a “correct” answer though. A cigar is a cigar. It can also stand for other stuff. Or not. Or both. That’s why we talk about cigars and compare them and discuss their relative merits and like which ones look the most like poop and which ones look the most like boners.
god i love logging in sometimes, i have no idea whats going on but i wanna fight too
What’s really pathetic is that this is what I do under all my pseudonyms and aliases. They’re all like this, just in isolated chambers where my ENEMIES can’t HARVEST MY DATA to use in their PLOTS and DASTARDLY SCHEMES.
Like someday I’ll be dead and like a nephew or some shit will receive my master password list and on that day a bunch of puzzle pieces will fall into place.
Only the puzzle is just a big uniform red square. The pieces are interchangeable. I was only ever this wherever I went.
are you okay my bro? is someone plotting to kill you?
Father Time. Some nonspecific but nonetheless menacing government entity. The abstract concept of Capitalism. The enraged ghost of Alois Alzheimer, if I make it to 70.
Aside from that, nah I’m as crisp as freshly chopped celery.
I’ll decide what the significance of the suffering of living plush toys is to me, I guess.
Generally it means a cruel thrill, so that’s the fun place I start from.