All art is political. Good reviews won't ignore that. Being aware of politics is a side effect of paying attention. Nothing you can do about it.
Yes sure, art is political, but art is political in a different way in which a discussion forum might be said to be political, and it's entirely reasonable to wish for a discussion forum with a less political bent.
- politics is about power dynamics, ideas, class, etc.
- art production and consumption interacts with those
- thus art is political.
In this view authorial intent has a second-class position to its tangible effect.
[0] Also I feel the need to reiterate that I was expressing the possible opinions of a hypothetical person I made up, not my own.
Van Gogh painted it in an asylum (social safety net) run by Franciscans (repeal of anti-Church laws during the Third Republic) because he had self-admitted after cutting off his own ear (treatment of physical violence as a medical problem) because he owed money to Gaugin (private property). It includes an imaginary house and was painted from memory because he wasn't allowed to paint in his room (medical treatment in a total institution), but he was allowed to use a spare room in the half-full asylum which was normally for the wealthy (obvious). That said, he considered it a painting from nature, rather than an "abstraction", a form which was preferred by Gaugin in order to indicate harmony between man and nature (a fin de siècle concern which also directly lead to the rejections of liberal democracy and bourgeois society in the early 20th Century). On his own account, the subject matter of stars connotes a spiritual hope — and you can make what you will of the more specific religous and astronomical interpratations that came later.
In a narrow sense, there's no political art except electoral propaganda, in a broad sense anything made by humans is political.
So I don't find the game of definitions is not particularly interesting. It's not even that interesting whether the political content of art is intentional or self-concious on the part of the author or whether it's imposed by others. The process which I think is worth thinking about is the very second-order process we're engaging in now: who wants to make a claim about the politics (or lack thereof) of art, and why are they interested in doing that?
That rubric is a lazy way for activists to try to smuggle their opinions into environments that frown on politicing.
The definition implies it, yes
> which means the word has no meaning.
I disagree, the "if everithing is X then nothing is X" applies only to thing that are in part defined as negative/contrapposition like being special, tall, a luxury, progressive, conservative, etc. it does not make sense when applied to things like being religious, having human rights, being moral.
"Everithing is political" means that nothing can be fully separated and insulated from the surrounding political atmosphere. I personally think it is not a constructive way to perceive the world, but it is perfectly self-consistent
Why isn't she instead studying for her exams or volunteering for charity work?
You read a book about adventurers. Why the act of doing so is praised, and not the act of hard work in fields or mills?
The real answer to those questions is that it makes the story more interesting. You are searching for a political reason where there is none. The question "what makes a story interesting" is philosophy and writing and not politics.
Personally I powered through some boring-but-virtuous books in my youth, but now I'm a middle-aged adult with less free time, I've realised reading is supposed to be fun.
So if a book review tells me a book is virtuous without telling me if it's fun, that book review isn't much use to me.
> Why isn't she instead studying for her exams or volunteering for charity work?
Because that isn't the story the author came up with?
Everything involving a substantial agreement or disagreement between persons is politics, that's what it means. Claiming that something 'should not be political' is almost always an assertion that your position is unassailably correct.
No, it it's an assertion that there's a whole world beyond your conception of "politics" and your position is impoverishing of the human experience.
Although the first sentence "YA about young heroine rebelling" is itself about politics really, so my comment doesn't apply.
Authors write what they feel like writing and what readers feel like reading, not what some liberal arts professor wants to include in their "the politics of YA books" course. Let me assure you that neither the writer nor the reader are interested in your concerns.
Art is intrinsically political. If you think it's not political, that's because it's just taking a political position you either don't see, or one you agree with.
The only way to remove politics from art would be to remove the people.
Yes, art is the projection of skill and beauty, but how we define skill and our perception of beauty also depend on context. You accepting the painting of the Mona Lisa as art tells something about you, while my grandfather rejecting it with the words "my 7-year-old granddaughter can draw better" tells something about him. This is inherently political. A modern art painting with color splashes is, in the most basic sense, not distinct from a 5-year-old playing with paint without context. With context, whether you accept it as art or not is political.
> Politics is the set of activities associated with making decisions in groups or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.
So even if you could argue that art itself is not political, you surely cannot argue that the perception of it isn't.
Your perception of it is, most people don't see art as political. Nobody would find a painting of a sea with a rock to be political, except really annoying people.
Anyway, funnily, the 1888 piece, "The Rocks", from Van Gogh was very political to show his impressionist alignment :)
To repeat what a previous commenter said, nothing is political as long as they fit your political view.
I don't share the politics of Van Gogh, yet I don't feel "The Rocks" is political.
So in general there are plenty of stuff that you wont find political even if you don't share the views, that is what people mean when they say an art piece isn't political. A person who says such an art piece is political is just trying to find politics in art where there isn't one.
Even if the original artist says it is political it isn't, because there is no politics in the art the politics was in his statement that it is political. Art stands on their own free from the opinions of their creators. You can of course embed political messages into art pieces making them political, but this isn't such a case. If you can't deduce what politics the person is trying to convey just from the art piece alone then it isn't political.
Don't you see the contradiction?
I know people often complain that everything has become political. I understand because I do it too. The main problem in this discussion is the loss of nuance in the different usages and meanings of the word "political." In everyday usage, it refers to views being part of the policy-making process, especially when more pressing matters exist. What we really mean and criticize is divisive politics.
However, in the extended view of politics, which is a very common view, designating something as art involves politics. It's a political process. This doesn't degrade art or make it inherently divisive. It certainly doesn't make art a subset of politics.
Nonsense. Art is strongly related to culture, and culture is strongly related to politics. The fact that art these days is very much viewed in a political frame, in the US in this case, is because politics have taken a huge role in US culture. Like, it's all American people seem to be thinking about these days.
But no, art is not political in itself. Art, by some definition, is a thing whose meaning is created by who experiences it. Art might look political if the observer looks at it in a political point-of-view. But in reality, tinned faeces [1] are not a political statement nor a reflection on the human condition. They are literally just shit in a box.
Otherwise, saying that something is not making a political statement is actually a very strong political statement in itself (e.g. things which are "not political" can't be negotiated or changed).
All art is political, because art relates itself to the society it is made in whether the artist likes it or not. Is a Nazi painter that paints totally apolitical pictures of landscapes while the genocide is happening one village over apolitical? i'd argue that this would be deeply political art, even if it wasn't meant to be just that. Taking no stance, while the world around you is happening is a political stance in itself.
Being apolitical is also political – in a stark difference to various gods politics will also affect you and your life, if you don't believe in politics.
By definition, all art should challenge the participant/consumer of it.
That challenge can be personal, or something else.
But all is not political. It only looks that way because in the current cultural environment The Politics Industrial Complex has over-developed (?) it's position in the hierarchy of the broader culture. It creases unhealthy biases etc to the point that We have forgotten "The government needs us, we don't need it."
Everything is not political. We as individuals still have influence. The PIC's lens isn't working. It's a false god. The sooner we change that, the better.
If I draw a painting of a pretty flower, that does not challenge you. It's just nice to look at.
Creativity !== Art
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.
But this definition makes the term "political" meaningless.
If you choose a definition for "political" which has actual use, not all art is political.
> 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.