Culture wars, identity politics, and artistic freedom

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Art is a continuation of politics by other means...

 

[Zkribbler]

Art is a continuation of politics by other means...

Clever. But sadly, 95+% of Americans wouldn't get the reference.
We here are a savvy group, but I'd bet less than half get the reference..

 

[Lexicus]

We here are a savvy group, but I'd bet less than half get the reference..

I'd bet it's a lot more than that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"exist as art" meant "are deemed as art", not "they exist (as art)"

If you look back at the previous comment I think you will see that what I disagreed with was an assertion that they were not political: sort of art purist theory. I never suggested that art wasn't art. What I said was that the art had a political component. The rulers of Florence didn't commission "just create art." They had intentions, and artists that wanted their patronage created art that furthered that intent. So, in fact, they do exist because they were "vessels of politics" as well...a direct contradiction of your statement.

They are still "deemed as art" today, no question, and their political value has ebbed away into history. That leads to a false belief that the "superior" rulers of the past provided artists with patronage "just for arts sake." Those rulers were no more patronizing art for the sake of art than George Washington was when he commissioned an imposing capitol dome.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you look back at the previous comment I think you will see that what I disagreed with was an assertion that they were not political: sort of art purist theory. I never suggested that art wasn't art. What I said was that the art had a political component. The rulers of Florence didn't commission "just create art." They had intentions, and artists that wanted their patronage created art that furthered that intent. So, in fact, they do exist because they were "vessels of politics" as well...a direct contradiction of your statement.

They are still "deemed as art" today, no question, and their political value has ebbed away into history. That leads to a false belief that the "superior" rulers of the past provided artists with patronage "just for arts sake." Those rulers were no more patronizing art for the sake of art than George Washington was when he commissioned an imposing capitol dome.

Ok, aren't you attacking a position not of my own, and thus pretty much placing a scarecrow on a field and hitting it as if i am supposed to bleed due to the blows?

The statue of Perseus decapitating the Medusa did have political meaning, arguably (eg it could present also the power of the ruling class of Florence), yet that isn't why it is worth something as art. My own point was that if a work has artistic value it doesn't get it from political ties. Afterall, the discussion was about some nu-writers claiming that one has to be politically correct or similar things in writing.

 

[inthesomeday]

Okay then you aren't really arguing anything at all. Of course the value of art comes separately from its ties to political claims. Political correctness is not a political claim, it's a minimum threshold of being non-problematic.

 

[Kyriakos]

Okay then you aren't really arguing anything at all. Of course the value of art comes separately from its ties to political claims. Political correctness is not a political claim, it's a minimum threshold of being non-problematic.

So there is a threshold not tied to art, potentially ok to disable something which is worth artistically? How is that a good position to be a proponent of?
The writer in the article claimed that an author of fiction should do things according to political sensibilities or other political stuff, and i am just noting that this is rather revealing as to how non-artistic this supposed writer is to begin with. If the work is garbage, it will be so regardless of politics. If it is having value, it will retain it even despite problematic politics (eg Lovecraft, Wagner, Celine etc being racists).
Then again the writer in that article isn't even about this position; but about some ridiculous forced inclusion of whatever issue (eg not presenting minorities pov if you aren't one, or having people of x skin tone cause you somehow must, and other such claims which have no place in art itself and are purely tv hack territory imo).

 

[inthesomeday]

I agree that garbage is garbage even if it's politically correct, that's never been in contention. Instead I think that something being politically incorrect makes it garbage. I simply cannot enjoy "art" that is racist, or sexist, or classist-- not in its content, which may be satirical or realist, like in portraying race issues or sexism, but in intent.

An example is the old movie Birth of a Nation. I straight up don't like that movie. It's often times lauded for its cinematographical pioneering, but it all becomes meaningless for me because of the intent of the subject and execution.

 

[Kyriakos]

^I agree that some art can only be dismissed if it is against a group one belongs to. Yet it isn't really an issue of whether the work has artistic value or not, in that case. It is about defense mechanisms, which logically should overrule artistic sentiment in the first place (i mean if someone called you names in a piece of literature, it is rather irrelevant if other people not called names there would or could like it; you would be entirely correct to not like it one bit).

Yet i am not really agreeing that if a work is without any politics one can be offended by, it follows it is the best possible version of said work. Yet (once again) this wasn't what the discussion was about; namely it was the rather indefensible position that a writer must be social-justice-warrior oriented, or that sjw somehow have a reason to exist regarding writing fiction. (i use sjw as an abbreviation, not meaning to offend anyone, take it as a term referring to the specific writer if you must )

Btw, there are writers of incredibly high worth, who were sexist (eg De Maupassant), or classist (Robert Walzer). Usually writers of rare worth do have their own considerable issues, else they'd settle for being clerks or whatever

 

[Ryika]

Instead I think that something being politically incorrect makes it garbage. I simply cannot enjoy "art" that is racist, or sexist, or classist-- not in its content, which may be satirical or realist, like in portraying race issues or sexism, but in intent.

Now you redefining the meaning of the word though. Something that is "politically incorrect" is not the same as something that is "racist or sexist in intent".
A joke that makes racism the punchline might be politically incorrect, while at the same time is meant to show that racism is bad, and by most people in the audience understood to mean exactly that.

This here is also an example of something that is highly politically incorrect, yet does not fit into your definition of political incorrectness:

(Spoilered mostly for image size, but also pseudo-rape joke inc)

Spoiler :

 

[inthesomeday]

That's not how people use the phrase politically incorrect

 

[Lexicus]

That's not how people use the phrase politically incorrect

I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone unironically use the phrase 'politically incorrect'.

 

[warpus]

Isn't the phrase "Politically correct" often used as a mockery of people trying too hard to not be offensive?

 

[Ryika]

That's not how people use the phrase politically incorrect

I'm not sure people use the phrase at all.

But the implied meaning is that it's the opposite of political correctness, which is:
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Things that are "perceived" to be that. So clearly, being politically incorrect just means not caring about the fact that some people "perceive" it to be these things, which again is different from them actually being these things.

 

[inthesomeday]

"Are perceived" isn't used in that definition to mean "just what anybody thinks" it's used to mean those facts that fascists deny. So the opposite of political correctness is comments that marginalize and exclude oppressed groups of people.

 

[Ryika]

How do I always forget that you don't live in reality but in a world where you make up definitions as you need them?

 

[Arent11]

It's interesting because it depicts the former "liberal elite" as being at war within itself. The "nativists" are a third force rising in the meanwhile. I don't think this is true. What I do see is a heterogeneous "coalition of the pissed off" striking back and doing so under the only available political leaders to do so, in this case it was Trump. So Trump was kind of a creation of this war withing the cultural elite... to which he aspired to, was mocked by, and eventually became pissed off with himself. Thus becoming a bad but somewhat "credible" tool for delivery of a repudiation by that coalition.

There are simply different ideologies/religions in the world which are in a constant "cold war" with each other. Sometimes this war gets hot, sometimes you can see it in scathing newspaper articles, sometimes you get a bad grade in school - and sometimes it consists of flaming someone in a civilization subforum

 

[Traitorfish]

"Politically correct" originated in the New Left; it was a somewhat over-literal translation of a Maoist phrase, and was used ironically by leftists to highlight their own tendencies towards orthodoxy. It was appropriate by journalists as a by-word for campus outrage, and from their picked up by conservatives as a term of abuse.

There's no correct definition of "political correctness", because the term started as a joke; it's just an unfortunate quirk of history that 1980s America was populated mostly by people with no sense of humour.

 

[Lexicus]

"Politically correct" originated in the New Left;

Not according to my knowledge/research. It originated as a criticism of people who toed the Stalinist line in the Communist Party in the 40s and 50s.

 

[inthesomeday]

Origins are unimportant compared to modern usage, which uses it as just another buzz phrase to silence dissent.