Re:The NYT Book Review Is Everything Book Criticism Shouldn'...
by aniviacat on Thursday July 11, 2024 @10:34AM
(#40937261)
If everything is political, then all art is political, too.
But this definition makes the term "political" meaningless.
If you choose a definition for "political" which has actual use, not all art is political.
Re:The NYT Book Review Is Everything Book Criticism Shouldn'...
by dsr_ on Thursday July 11, 2024 @10:38PM
(#40942361)
Please display your definition of "political" which makes sense in all our usual contexts but also makes at least some art unable to be viewed as political.
Re:The NYT Book Review Is Everything Book Criticism Shouldn'...
by aniviacat on Friday July 12, 2024 @10:56AM
(#40946185)
Sure, I'll give it a try:
> Something is political if it is intended to discuss, share or pomote certain thoughts on topics relating to behaviours or systems within a society.
The most notable difference of this definition to what you appear to understand as political is probably that it has to be intended to be political.
Someone eating meat doesn't intend to make a statement about consumption of animal products? Then them eating meat is not political.
Is there cultural context? The Victorian Brits encoded messages into flowers; some of those meanings are still current. (Give a friend a red rose, another friend a potted daisy. Do they react differently?) A red poppy is a symbol of one thing, specifically because of culture. Chrysanthemums mean different things in America and Japan.
And if the artist writes a statement: "This is just a painting of a pretty flower." that too is a political statement.