On the topic of art being political: As a fan of art and art history and very much a fan of expressionism and impressionism I would say the sunflowers are political... in a way, this again as somone said on chat depends by what you consider political and the social context at the time of the painting. Let's take the example of van Gogh for example, there are many ways we could see his art as political - his painting style was at times impressionistic at times expressionistic, now mostly considered Post- impressionist. The impressionists and expressionists mostly didn't like each other, although their aim was the same, to challenge academic art and depict the beauty or emotions of the mundane, so to begin with that was already rebellious, and to some this could be considered political just by challenging the status quo of art at the time. Part of this rebellion was focusing on the mundane, instead of art being reserved for grandiose subjects (mythological, religious, historical), it focused on the farmers working the field, the fishermen, basically the eye through the eye of the painter. - Van Gogh specifically was said to be a champion of the poor, portraying the working classes in positive light, he supported early forms of socialism, some might say this is what makes his art political. - He struggled with mental illness and financial difficulties, so maybe this is why many of the sunflowers in the paintings look wilted or not as fresh, this fact alone could make somone view his art as political since its a topic in politics now. Ultimately I think the best answer is that all art is surrounded by politics one way or another. I wouldn't say all art is inherently political and certainly most artists are not thinking about politics while painting, but around it there is all this context that you can only see and appreciate if you look at the art through a political lens, which you can certainly do for all art you have enough information on.
Art is not fundamentally political, but every art need to have opinnion, at least in meta level where creator said this need to be created. I like cats, is opinion and it is not fundamentally political, but statement that everyone needs to like cats is political. Maybe Art meta is reason why all art may feel political because there is so many people to say what is art annd what is not. And one factor may be modern enviroment where neutral opinion will get burried under black and white, zero and one, maximum contrast. And there is whole thing about how your feeling about art is your personal property, not a attribute of art piece. So many people are dang bad to separate itself from others or not to poison super-categories with feelings.
@@TELNATION So the entire country decided to just pronounce his name wrong? Tupac is his actual name, It’s like if we pronounced John as Jone for some random reason. Huh the more ya know 🌈⭐️
![My Favorite Hermitcraft Charity Stream Moments! [2024]](/img/n.gif)
On the topic of art being political:
As a fan of art and art history and very much a fan of expressionism and impressionism I would say the sunflowers are political... in a way, this again as somone said on chat depends by what you consider political and the social context at the time of the painting.
Let's take the example of van Gogh for example, there are many ways we could see his art as political
- his painting style was at times impressionistic at times expressionistic, now mostly considered Post- impressionist. The impressionists and expressionists mostly didn't like each other, although their aim was the same, to challenge academic art and depict the beauty or emotions of the mundane, so to begin with that was already rebellious, and to some this could be considered political just by challenging the status quo of art at the time.
Part of this rebellion was focusing on the mundane, instead of art being reserved for grandiose subjects (mythological, religious, historical), it focused on the farmers working the field, the fishermen, basically the eye through the eye of the painter.
- Van Gogh specifically was said to be a champion of the poor, portraying the working classes in positive light, he supported early forms of socialism, some might say this is what makes his art political.
- He struggled with mental illness and financial difficulties, so maybe this is why many of the sunflowers in the paintings look wilted or not as fresh, this fact alone could make somone view his art as political since its a topic in politics now.
Ultimately I think the best answer is that all art is surrounded by politics one way or another. I wouldn't say all art is inherently political and certainly most artists are not thinking about politics while painting, but around it there is all this context that you can only see and appreciate if you look at the art through a political lens, which you can certainly do for all art you have enough information on.
Thank you sir for the super fun stream today. ❤
Art is not fundamentally political, but every art need to have opinnion, at least in meta level where creator said this need to be created.
I like cats, is opinion and it is not fundamentally political, but statement that everyone needs to like cats is political.
Maybe Art meta is reason why all art may feel political because there is so many people to say what is art annd what is not. And one factor may be modern enviroment where neutral opinion will get burried under black and white, zero and one, maximum contrast.
And there is whole thing about how your feeling about art is your personal property, not a attribute of art piece.
So many people are dang bad to separate itself from others or not to poison super-categories with feelings.
53:00 strawberry pi 😂
How do you know so much about 2Pac (Tupac), but pronounce it as 2 pack?
Bc he's from the Uk
@@TELNATION So the entire country decided to just pronounce his name wrong? Tupac is his actual name, It’s like if we pronounced John as Jone for some random reason. Huh the more ya know 🌈⭐️
@@Anthony_247it's an accent
@@voidslabelizXD yea…
4:44 40:36