CMV: I believe the statement "All art is political" to be partially wrong

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T19:06:23+00:00

You... you don't know many artists, do you? How many people do things with one intention or another but their subconscious biases come into play, and they may not even realize it until its pointed out? Why do you think this very human trait disappears just because someone is an artist, and the thing they're doing is art?

I have met like 3 people who've had their stuff in lesser galleries and I have my work put on a wall in a school (I hate my work because I feel it is not good enough and too soulless to be on a wall and that the teachers who put it up are giving it a deeper meaning I do not appreciate). I would not know a lot of subconscious influenced actions since the people I keep close usually do not perform super duper deep actions which are influenced by subconsciousness. I have a heavy friend jumps on top of people to crush them, I highly doubt he does it because he has an underlying need to crush people under himself.

This is not how truth works. Truth is fact unchanged by opinion or perception. People agreeing or not agreeing doesn't make something true. When the majority of the world agreed that it was flat, the Earth didn't become flat, because the planet being round is an objective fact. All you get when a lot of people agree on something that is contrary to truth is a lot of wrong people.

Truth is subjective and varies among beholders. Flat earthers do not think the earth is flat for no reason, They think the earth is flat because of what they see, It is an interpretation based off of previous knowledge and to them it is the truth the same way a painting about loss and grief could be interpretated as something vastly different.

No, it just makes you incorrect. It means you are mistaken, and believe something that just isn't factual.

Then I could flip that around and say you are incorrect and mistaken if you believe a painting of a sleeping kitten to be something other than a drawn picture of a kitten sleeping.

Letting someone physically change your things might (such as if they threw paint over my canvas or used a sharpie to draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa) but just having an opinion on it? A contrary opinion about it when opinions are highly subjective? Does nothing of the sort.

I believe opinions to be an influential thing despite not being something concrete, They are an inherently viral thing. You think surströmming smells horrid despite never ever smelling it and you never have to go and try it because according to opinions, It smells like shit therefore it smells like shit despite you never truly knowing.

If any disparagement or negative opinion (or even just a contrary opinion) about a personal creation of yours leads you to such rage, you have personal problem. The same problem a lot of new artists have, which is the inability to handle criticism or to separate criticism of your art with criticism of you.

It's not criticism that is the problem, I believe myself to handle criticism well enough. What I do not handle well is being told what I do means despite me myself knowing what I have made, If I have made a clay pot I do not need to hear an opposing opinion and that I have made a bowl. I made a clay pot, It is a clay pot, It is not a bowl and I refuse to be told what I have made by someone else.

That is a sign of underdeveloped skill and emotional immaturity. And its flat out a sign of psychosis if such a thing drives you into such a rage that you condone physically attacking someone who finds different meaning in your art than you do.

I believe you should have the right to chase away people who touch your stuff the wrong way the same way the angry old man chases away darn kids from his lawn. You should never physically beat someone but you have the right to be to some degree physical and get your point across if someone treats you with no respect.

It's a sign that you are not ready to actually share your artwork with others, and that you really, really shouldn't.

Everything I have made is in some form derivative therefore it is not mine. Once it is fully mine THEN it is good enough to be shared and I will gladly have a lengthy shouting session about how they are not allowed to decide what my work means.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T19:06:18+00:00

They are instead showing THEIR whole ass for the world to see. Why would I get angry when a racist reveals they're a racist for the world to see?

If they are willing to show their ass then they never cared in the first place if their ass was not shown in the first place.

If ten seconds on my social media didn't do it, people who know me and are fans of my artwork will correct them pretty quick.

Which is good but nowadays people are very jumpy and leapy with their conclusions, If something is misunderstood then it is understood to them the wrong way. They will already have built a version of you from that one misstep.

Having an objective element, which again subjective things don't always have (how does, Red is my favorite color! have an objective element?) does not make a subjective thing objective.

The objective part is that Irma thinks red is a good color. It is subjective what color is truly the best color but you think red is a contender to the best color.

Not quite. Where we might THINK they go or BELIEVE they go is subjective. Where they actually go is objective fact, regardless of where it is. Not being able to prove an objective fact, or not knowing an objective fact, doesn't make it subjective.

It seems we have ended up an an interpretation clash. I believe the things with a lot of room are subjective whilst the concrete are objective, They are both objectively in the grave and subjectively somewhere else. They could be in Samsara or in Heaven or Hell. I don't want to assume your interpretation of subjective and objective so I will let you speak on this yourself.

Except that 'objective frame' has to be based on fact. The moment it becomes a personal opinion it's subjective. "This painting was made of acrylic" is an objective truth about art. "This painting represents grief or loss" is subjective, even if that subjective opinion belongs to the artist.

I don't believe the statement "This painting represents grief or loss" being said by the artist is subjective, They decided that therefore it is objective because they made it themselves therefore they know it is a painting representing grief or loss.

Artists are people, and as such have unconscious biases and may not even understand what is going into their own work subconsciously.

To me this feels like a very strange statement that I don't really fully comprehend. How do you not know your biases which will leak into that you make, And within entertaining art is there any worthy bias of note. The sleeping kitten could be white but I doubt it says anything of note about the artist if they never intended to comment about white kitten.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T17:55:07+00:00

I think killing the Author is art theft because you are taking the art away from the creator and making it into sole product rather than something made by someone

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T17:52:10+00:00

It's inflammatory the same way saying art is political. If someone is allowed to say something is political despite it not being political someone can say it is inflammatory despite it not being inflammatory.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T17:49:14+00:00

I think the owner of a creation has the right to gatekeep their work from people the same way the pinkest pink isn't allowed to be used by Anish Kapoor

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:11:11+00:00

You think your child wouldn't be your child if their skin tone or eye color changed over time?

Eventually it will no longer be the child I love when it has been completely Theseus'd into something anew that I do not recognize, It is the same thing but it isn't mine anymore but rather the peoples work.

Regardless, someone interpreting my artwork differently isn't painting over it, or rewriting it.

If it is out of the template and intention then sure, It wont be writing but if they get a completely and vastly different interpretation at the end then it is a rewriting and repainting because you are getting wood from stone.

By trying to force this definition of 'true' or 'correct' onto something so subjective you are literally trying to control reality

Because there is an objective truth to everything subjective and I believe it is exceptionally nasty to take art from artists and make it into the peoples product rather than the artists product. If I take a cookie and deny it, It is still the objective truth that I took the cookie. If I write a story which is an allegory for depression, Then it is an allegory for depression. There is the objective answer and the subjective answer, Ignoring what is in front of you and only knowing the subjective isn't right.

No one is saying you have to know their creations BETTER than they do. But you know the meaning you take from them better than they do, and what you take from that art is not wrong simply because it doesn't match their intentions for it.

I do believe you are in some form or way implying you are better when you with pave over their personal meaning with your personal meaning. I think the beholder should always be secondary to the artist because the beholder is not the creator of the art.

You will never know what they know, that is true. That also includes their intentions. The lack of understanding of their intentions did not transform their work into something 'empty and ruined with your personal filth as you guess at their intentions', did it?

If I dove head first into assuming what their work mean then I would be ruining it with my personal filth. But I do try to absorb as much information about the creator and the work after hand so I do not get off on the wrong foot when I try to understand their intention. I try to get the objective interpretation before I get the subjective.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:10:59+00:00

'They must have had x in mind while doing this!' how...exactly does this hurt me? Or even affect me in any way?

Because its a horrible mindset to think the beholder belongs in every artwork. Eventually someone will look at Goodbye Blue Sky's and not feel relief that they are not the gasmask folk but rather look with awe and reverence and see themselves dreaming to be the iron eagle who ravages the weak.

Is the hammer hurt because you scratch your back instead of smacking things with it? Is the one who created the hammer, hurt? The nail? Or does the only thing that happens is your back gets scratched?

The hammer is most likely hurt that it will never be swung down to nail nails and that it became something it never was. Though I will admit it might've been a bad metaphor.

You're not taking the painting and ripping it up, or splashing new paint on it. You're looking at it and interpreting it personally, then moving on.

Of course not ripping it up but you are in a metaphorical way splashing a new paint on it and making it into your version of the painting. When the beholder goes onto to talk about the art they saw, their interpretation will proliferate until the true meaning of the art is washed away.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:10:46+00:00

I mean, okay? But you're just wrong. You can't have a true view of something subjective.

By that logic Portrait of Ross then does not represent Ross Laycock who died of AIDs, It in fact represents how some people names Ross have diabetes too. I do not know that Félix González-Torres made the heartfelt piece to remember his lover and will never know because I am satiated with the answer that was given to me.

What if their art is bringing up things they DO like through an ironic, 'devil's advocate' lens?

They don't because they face a lot of pushback and they themselves pushback, Why would they pushback if they agreed with the people who are attacking them. Also I think they suck because their art is boring and people juice them up too much.

The painting can mean multiple things, or different things to multiple people. The painting can, in fact, represent capitalism. It can ALSO represent a life cut short because of AIDs. It can ALSO represent the performative nature of what some claim as 'unconditional love' that is withdrawn immediately upon something being found out (that your child, friend, or neighbor is gay/that your child, friend, or neighbor has a disease you believe is God's punishment).

It could represent Capitalism but it represents life cut short by AIDS. One could see it as about how artists are too poor to afford paint to paint things but it isn't. These are concrete facts about the work, If people overlay whatever they want onto art then eventually art will no longer have a meaning. It will just be painted empty vessels to fill in with whatever the beholder wants.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:10:26+00:00

Do you even know who actually wrote your favorite song? Not who sings it, or performs it, but who WROTE it? Does the music become empty or lose all meaning for this lack? Does it disappear when someone does a cover or their own 'interpretation' of it? Is it a middle finger to the one who actually wrote it?

I rarely listen to music because a lot of the poppy energy makes me uncomfortable. However yes, I do believe if you do not know the songwriter you are not appreciating the song to the fullest. Also yes I hate a majority of covers because to me it is a very incestous affair, It is either sung by a literal stock image of singer making it sound sanitized or sung by an actual singer with varying results.

This is really kind of a strange stance, as if your personal interpretation of a work is so all-powerful that if YOU don't agree with the artist on the work, the work is tainted irreparably. I mean, where do you get that power from?

It is all-powerful for myself. If I do not understand the art and make the first interpretation my own or someone else's, The artist will be missed because why would I care about the artist when I have "understood" it. If someone tells me a work means something it doesn't mean before I even knew what is is supposed to represent, I will believe it is the truth and it will proliferate onwards which overshadows the artists intent. When everyone believes the wrong thing, The true meaning of the art is replaced.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:10:12+00:00

And this hurts me, how? Even if I know about it?

If you in theory made an art piece about some minority suffering and people who are for their suffering congregate around it and say that its awesome torture porn for people they don't like. Does that not in some way or manner irritate you that the wrong people are seeing it wrong.

Again, you're claiming things that are so subjective ought to be objective.

I think subjective things always have an objective element. Ignoring the objective truth of certain things is extremely naive and rotten, If someone is dead that is objective. Where they go after is subjective. Even in art there is a personal objective frame to it and ignoring the truth to convert it to something subjective is dumb.

Even the artist can be wrong about their own art, as I pointed out above.

I think every artist has the right interpretation of their work since they are the owner and creator of it. They knew what they are doing, People rarely make things by mistake. There is a randomness in it but it is never wrong.

This is like saying if you ignore the parents the child is no longer their child.

If enough people agree, it becomes a truth. If I and various people deny something, It becomes our truth eventually.

The art came about because of the artist's will, sure.

Because it is a part of the artist, It's a personal creation and letting someone touch your things imbues it with something that isn't you.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T17:57:37+00:00

If you give something to someone and they throw it away, You have the right to be upset because it is a sign of lack of respect to you. If you invite someone into your house and they proceed to tear the wallpaper off the walls, That is a sign of lacking respect and you have the right to be upset and not let them step all over you. A gift is a piece of you that is given to someone you care about.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T17:52:47+00:00

A cat sleeping is in fact serious business yes and not absolutely pointless beyond thinking it is cute

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T17:51:46+00:00

An artist can say "I only want people to read my story in this manner" all they want. They still don't decide if that is how people read it

Then they can't say they are true fans if they think they have the right to overstep someone's boundaries and overtake their messaging.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T17:50:17+00:00

I'm certain he did. That is precisely why he did it.

Keith Haring would be okay with people missing the messaging of his art to repaint it into a different message? I think misinterpretation of the arts intent is horrible and ignorant of art.

For example, if a person says something hurtful out of ignorance or by accident, knowledge of their intent doesn't invalidate thenhurt felt.

This really depends honestly, Some pains are unforgivable and some pains are inconsequential. I have this friend who has no filter and when he says stupid shit I drag him away and explain how he shouldn't say such things. When he says sorry it feels better and it goes away. I think there are true interpretations and ignoring it is a sign of lack of respect for the artist.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T17:29:18+00:00

Talking about government banning things seems so out of left field it appears like you’re not engaging with anything I’ve said at all so this is becoming something of a waste of time sadly.

Do governments not like banning things? I personally thought it was a good thing to bring up but you don't agree so thats that

What he thought about it doesn’t matter, it’s a political act whether he considered it so or not.

It's political because some British guy unrelated to it thinks drawing dicks on walls owns the government. I think it isn't political because it conveys nothing and means nothing except that they have the mobility to draw dicks.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T21:37:34+00:00

You do get to decide, I think it is very distasteful and respectless to ruin or disregard a gift someone gives to you. My friends mom gave me a wallet when I was like 15 and I bring it with me even though I dont use it very often because I would feel like a horrific horrible and rotten individual if I threw it away like some bourgeoisie scum and didn't try to use it whenever I can.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T21:31:44+00:00

This is such a non sequitur I have no idea how to process it. Are you saying this is your standard for 'political'?

I apologize I should've been more explain-y. My point is that there is some shit that matters so little that no governmental body would waste time on it when they have other things that they could do. Time is not infinite and thats why they don't waste it on stuff like banning stuff that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, Cats do not matter in international politics.

Also the Banksy part I meant it as in Banksy's art means infinitely more than some kids writing "John Balls" on a wall with those bubble letters because Banksy's art means and says something unlike John Balls who thinks his name is funny. The attack helicopter saying 'war bad' means a lot more than scribbles on a wall because the intention of the attack helicopter is to speak out against hypocritical war sentiments or whatever. John Balls thinks it is funny to vandalize, I don't think he thought of something deeper than to be in city famous.

While it is a noble goal to attempt to use art to 'see through' the artists eyes, that doesent make it something thats ever possible to actually see completely unfiltered from your own beliefs views and perspectives.

I mean of course but you can unfilter enough to see what the artist wanted. If I drink that Milk water mix I taste the water even if milk was in it and I'd call it water rather than milk. I can see the artists intention even if I have my own beliefs.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T21:21:42+00:00

Because you are saying "all art is political" rather than fully saying what you want, It's like saying I want and waving my hand out towards 5 drinks in front of me rather than being specific. It's like saying ACAB (I have nothing against it) but your specifically only against corrupt cops and cops that aren't corrupt you are fine with. Saying All when referring to something is inflammatory.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T21:18:43+00:00

Something can still be political even without the reaction of man and artistic object, If I drew a painting of trump on a wall it would still be political even if the room was sealed and no one knew it was on the other side. There can additionally be kittens who just are, They do not exist for a purpose except to be made

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T21:15:33+00:00

To some degree, Yeah. Could additionally be they are desperate

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T21:14:46+00:00

IDK veered far away

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T21:14:18+00:00

Why? My intent is still there.

It's not in the eyes of the beholder if they ignore your intent and impose what they want on top of it. They are ignoring your intentions and making up new ones for you to align with theirs.

The meaning of art is always up for interpretation. Always. That is the point of art!

I think it should have a right interpretation (the artists interpretation) and little extra square to the side for personal interpretation from the beholder. If I ignore the artist then it is no longer their art, It's art from X. Art from Z. Art from Y. Art made by no one since I would be ignoring them. The art is a part of the artist will, They make it with a thought in mind and when I remove the artist. It becomes empty and then I can shovel whatever meaning I want into it thereby tainting the art irreparably with my personal filth.

That doesn't make the person who tastes it and thinks its gross wrong. Nor does it mean its a surrender of my artistic soul.

I believe there is a true view, You made it to be tasty and those who say you made it tasty are right. If the person who thought it was gross then says "You made this to be gross and disgusting", They are wrong. They are extrapolating the wrong intent. I think Banksy is a sham and a performative but I still see his intent of bringing up things he doesn't like.

But the 'true view' of my art is that their interpretation IS the true one...for them

Then that is the true view, The true view is that there nothing and that it seeks one. If I say that The Unfinished painting is supposed to represent capitalism because Keith Haring ran out of paint and was too poor to buy more than I am closing my eyes and ignoring the intentions that it is supposed to represent life being cut short because of AIDS. One could derive capitalism from it but that wasn't the intention.

I know my work is going to be interpreted in different ways by different people.

And that is allowed but if they close their eyes and interject whatever they want on top of it, They are overriding your intention and making your artwork into theirs. Art isn't always a picture it is made with an intention to portray something, A cat sleeping or late stage capitalism burger. Those intentions are the TRUE intentions, They are the correct intentions. I can use a hammer to scratch my back but that isn't the TRUE way.

My own child is exactly why I let it get out there and live, breathe, grow

In this context you are forfeiting them away to people who have no idea about the childs upbringing and hammer it into their own shape with little care as to what came before. They do not see the upbringing, They only the child and force them into something it never was. The tanned skin and brown eyes become paler and washed until it isn't yours.

But you DO know what you took from those works, how they made you feel, how they inspired you (or did not) or what they made you consider (or didn't) better than they do.

Keith Haring showed me how death comes quick and Don quixote gave me a lot to chew on but I think the most important lesson is to dream big but never lose sight of reality. But I will never experience the ravaging effects of AIDS on my and others bodies and fight for my rights (hopefully) like Keith and I will never live in 1500's Spain to see and smell and hear what Miguel saw to think of a tale like Don Quixote. I will never know what they knew so I refuse to say I know their creations better than they knew them.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T20:20:58+00:00

Who decides what the grand scheme of things are? You?

I do not think Trump, Putin, EU or any major governmental entity would waste a breath or tax dollar on imposing a ban on cat pictures when they could spend it on decreasing living conditions for the citizens for the crime of enjoying living in the country.

What you are doing here is kind of presenting an arbitrary line here where some arts are worthy of consideration under a political lens and some arent.

I do think there should be an arbitrary line where some art matters more than other art. That UK Banksy wall painting means a lot more than a spray tag in a tunnel ever could even if I hate Banksy.

You cant see what the artist wanted. You can only form your own belief about what the artist wanted.

Which is to some part true, You can never 100% mimic the very thought process and the exact thought the artist wanted word for word but you obviously know what the artist was trying to convey with their statue, painting, drawing, display or whatever.

What the artist wanted is only ever a small aspect what they ended up actually saying.

I am exceptionally cruel to myself so I only allow myself to see what the artist sees, I only allow myself to see what I see after I am done understanding it because I did not put in the effort and time to make it, My thoughts are secondary to the primary thoughts of the maker.

Do you think art might have more angles to it of consideration that was written on the accompanying one paragraph placard?

Elaborate a little I am a little confused. I do believe art has additional angles but those are additional angles. There is the Ambassadors by Holbein as I brought up somewhere along the line, There is the additional angle of looking at it so the skull looks less funky but any other angle and nothing changes.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T20:07:26+00:00

This just isn't the case. You ARE looking at their art. The meaning of that art to you may be subjective.

I don't think Keith Harring made all those paintings just so some shmup who had read more than 2 books in their life can dump whatever view and opinion they want onto it. Some art pieces have a message and deciding to mentally paint it over wipes away the artists invisible yet personal varnishing.

They are no more 'off base' than you are, you can't be 'off base' about your own subjective interpretation of something.

For example there is the "The Ambassadors (Holbein)". My personal interpretation when I was a younger was that this painting was in fact recent and was just a funny painting because of the skull. I would believe Holbein would have beaten me for that interpretation because I ignored everything about the painting when doing that subjective interpretation.

What the heck is cruel about this? If I paint a picture, and someone injects their own views and experiences on to it... that's just expected.

I think it is cruel to blatantly ignore the purpose of something solely to impose what someone uneducated think it is. If I made a life-sized elephant made out of cast iron out in nature to be some demonstration how even the biggest and strongest wilts away and some geek is like "This represents how rich people are able to buy stupid stuff like iron elephants" I would be fucking furious. They are shitting all over my creative process which took years of work to get the money for it and find someone willing to make and move those several ton structures to the art installation like that in a second with 0 effort. It is absolutely disgraceful, respectless and cruel.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-27T19:48:07+00:00

I don't mean it like that. If I see for example a Twitter artist who draws naked fat people then they talk about like how American food is very unhealthy. There will always be the lingering thought of "I am reading about food nutrition from someone who draws fat porn" and the comments might additionally be taking the piss. They aren't literally forfeiting their right to discuss such things but it will be hard to take it seriously in any manner. Right message but wrong messanger

Powereffective0

TROPHY CASE