Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art

>Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art.
Is he right? If so, isn't a large swath of the Western Canon not art? Genuine question

deciding what is written for a political purpose will always be arbitrary. You can tether politics to anything and at the same time deny categorically that a piece of work was written for a political purpose and that its pertinence to politics was merely coincidental.

Just because something has political significance doesn't mean it was written to serve a political purpose. What matters is the intention, the legitimacy of what's expressed. So no, that definition does not preclude any large chunk of the western canon.

thjs guy is a fukken dumpass retard stop poating his stupid azz face every day thank you

Then according to that, 90% of his shit on YouTube is propaganda.

why are you feeding yet another /leftypol/ memerson thread?
just ignore and move on
go on, user, you can do it
just
don't
bump

Dostoevsky - not art
Tolstoy - not art
Zola - not art
Manzoni - not art
Steinbeck - not art
Sinclair - not art

Wow.

>If so, isn't a large swath of the Western Canon not art?

Not really. Most of it was made to explore and create, even if it was to explore different political stances of the time or create new ones, which means the writer did not particularly have a stance before writing and did not seek to promote one simply because mommy and daddy pounded it into his skull like a religion as a kid.

Most artists in history are far too individualistic to prescribe themselves to a fashion of thought so mindlessly, which is what ideologues do.

how do I filter these threads?

Peterson threads are genuinely the most entertaining on this board by far

What about anything sculpted or painted?

T. Brainlet

>swath
please leave

What's the problem, friend?

Except 99% of the so-called Art produced these days is ostensibly political. Isn’t that hard really.

since when are there two things mutually exclusive

He is absolutely wrong. Typical pap from someone who's so immersed in neoliberal ideology he fails to see how everyday life is continuously trespassed by politics.

This doesn't mean anything, "explore, create", what weight do these words have in themselves? You're just trying to justify works you like which happen to be political, but still doesn't change the fact that Memerson is once again spouting shit he knows nothing about because the world would be a better place if it conformed to his WASP-via-Jung apollogetics.

>Most artists in history are far too individualistic to prescribe themselves to a fashion of thought so mindlessly, which is what ideologues do.
LMAO what the fuck are you even talking about, how can someone make such a generalizing and retarded claim for ideological reasons why calling other people ideologues.

Only decent post ITT
Are you guys actually retarded?

He's like Richard Dawkins, but for philosophy instead of atheism.

He has nothing to do with philosophy, though--he's a psychology professor.

That's the point. Dawkins is a biologist who thinks he's an expert on religion and theology despite not understanding it at all - just like this dipshit with philosophy.

>for ideological reasons

I'm talking about the psychological temperament of artists. So is Peterson. His claim is that artists who consciously create with the goal of pushing a political standpoint are not creating art. Well, they can still end up creating art (exemplary works that are pleasurable), but it will be weaker for it. It's a Nietzschean idea; it's why Nietzsche thought Greek tragedy declined with Euripides (because he injected a moral message in his tragedies whereas the prior simply celebrated emotions and life). It has to do with what the artist is trying to do -- if they simply want to create something that celebrates their viewpoint, with no other substance to it, it is propagandastic primarily.

I don't see how this is that much of a controversial claim. Seems obvious to me.

but he doesnt pretend to be a philosopher and has claimed numerous times that he is not one

"Temperament of artists" doesn't mean absolutely anything, it's pure melodramatic drivel masquerading as an actual position. You can't possibly derive a proper "temperament" from the majority of the artists in western history from their work or their biography, not to mention the multitude of artists whose work and personal life seem to be almost oposites.
I dont want to disagree with Nietzsche here but you have to be kind of soft in the head not to see both Aeschylus and Sophocles produced moralistic plays, and you probably don't even agree with Peterson that much on this one, considering he's a fan of Dostoievski, the biggest moralist to ever step on Earth.
You honestly don't seem that well versed in art and only seem to care about it as far as it reinforces whatever it is that you believe in, the fact that you think that you can draw a very clear line on what are the artist's true intentions and what is propaganda is a very clear indicator of this, and you should seriously start branching out more outside of what your Jungian Daddy tells you to

Yet he constantly makes baseless assumptions about philosophy.

Just the opposite - there's no such thing as apolitical art. Works which attempt to be neutral, tacitly endorse whatever system is currently in power, simply by virtue of NOT opposing it.

No, that would be the Tyson.

>this is your brain on /pol/

That sounded more like /leftypol/

This might have been a lie before the 20th century but it's been 100% true ever since.

>this is your brain on Nietzsche
ftfy

Does he think the Gulag Archipelago is art?

>the fact that you think that you can draw a very clear line on what are the artist's true intentions and what is propaganda
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Tear down Uffizi, blow up Guggenheim. True art should shine once again.

The Guggenheim has nothing to do with Soviet Realism, quite the contrary.
Funnily enough, something like The Birth of Venus, which is part of the Uffizi's permanent show, would have a lot of socio-political declarations for a renaissance critic which you completely miss today.

But does Peterson ever claim to make art?

There's no presupposition of this claim in his statement, brainlet.

>Is he right?
No

he's only wrong if you have a problem with accepting that you enjoy propaganda

Huh, well shit

>You can't possibly derive a proper "temperament" from the majority of the artists in western history from their work or their biography

You can to some degree when you look at the works they produce.

>you have to be kind of soft in the head not to see both Aeschylus and Sophocles produced moralistic plays

Their works do not contain moral messages. You can derive morals from their works, but that's just the audience bastardizing the plays because they are too stupid to experience them otherwise. It's not the same as a work that is driven by the desire to convince the audience of a particular moral (or political) position.

>You honestly don't seem that well versed in art

This coming from the guy who is saying all art is consciously driven to convince the audience of a political or moral stance.

>You can to some degree when you look at the works they produce.
You completely ignore the rest of the post in which I talk about that

>You can derive morals from their works, but that's just the audience bastardizing
Hot opinion

>all art is consciously driven to convince the audience of a political or moral stance.
Not all of it but much more than you can possibly know without studying it, something you clearly haven't.

>Hot opinion
>how I interpret the art is all that matters, not what the artist is thinking
>even though the discussion is about the intention behind the art i.e. what the artist was thinking
You're an idiot.

>Not all of it but much more than you can possibly know without studying it
I have studied plenty. The amount of art produced for beauty is immense.

All true

There is a world of middle ground between "how I interpret it" and "How the artist feels". One thing this middle ground has in common is that both the artist's intentions and the public's reception aren't to be counted on, since almost always, you won't have access to either. If you had studied art enough, you'd know that there are much more efficient and intelligent ways of evaluating any given work - formal cohesion, composition, technique, openness, blah blah blah - but who cares, right.
>The amount of art produced for beauty is immense.
"Beauty" as used in most of western art is very clearly a socio-political / moral ideal. Once again, scrutonites spouting shit they know nothing about.

>formal cohesion, composition, technique, openness, blah blah blah - but who cares, right.

I don't see how the scales of measurement pertaining to the technicalities and labor / skill behind an artwork have anything to do with this discussion since the discussion is about the themes and ideas being uplifted in the work. If you think there is something inherently political in this aspect then I suppose you think life is inherently political? Did the political exist before the human? All energy is political energy? etc.

You are a faggot.

>"Beauty" as used in most of western art is very clearly a socio-political / moral ideal.

No. They coincide at times but you are generalizing.

opennes and formal cohesion aren't technicality. And yes, human life is inherently political, at least in any historical level.

And it's not just that they coincide at times, there's also YOUR politization of beauty as a standard to be pursued by contemporary art, who has relegated beauty to another tool or option in the artist's toolset.

>human life is inherently political

Do you agree with this definition of "politics" on Dictionary.com?

"use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc."

Or Wikipedia's?

"Politics is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state."

If so, are you really saying, with complete sincerity, that all of human action, motive, and desire, is in regards to making a decision for a group, establishing hierarchy in it and obtaining power within it? Does the individual really not exist in your mind?

>at least in any historical level.

What does this mean? "It is this case in all cases which I deem valid"? That's how it reads to me.

It's possible to be above or outside the herd. That is all.

I'm not the art user, but you're clearly a fucking brainlet that can't stop churning out hot garbage and consider the very basic premises of what he's arguing. Artistic intent is most certainly not something clearly or even unclearly determinable. We have to this day a multitude of completely intrinsically coherent and valid different interpretations of the most classic of classics. Absolutely the same goes for public reaction - Olympia and VU&N's Banana were peak obscenity shock art when they were released charged with very powerful statements, yet look completely innocuous today.

>being brainlet to the point you don't understand the difference between teleological and inherent values
You probably don't purposefully aim to harm our climate every time you fart, but you most certainly do to some degree.

Your definition of politics from dictionary.com is either nitpicked or severly lacking, and the wikipedia one is rather short sighted.
Politics are what arise between humans in a organized society, the political is the sphere in which human life is lived beyond it's mere animal capabilities.

"Historical" as in post-pre-historic, organized, sedentary, political life. Any life beyond political life is merely animal life, and there's little distinction between a un-politic human and a bonobo.

>and consider the very basic premises of what he's arguing

Funny, that's how I feel about the opposition. You guys want the individual to conform to your groupthink "politics" as if the Greeks, the Romantic period and the recent birth of the individual never happened in history.

I acknowledge that these things may come about due to changes in political climate, but do you what makes changes in political climate? Changes in the philosophical. And it goes deeper than that, into the territory of the unknown. The political is not the be-all end-all, this is an extremely narrow and all too human view of life that asserts such a thing.

>Absolutely the same goes for public reaction - Olympia and VU&N's Banana were peak obscenity shock art when they were released charged with very powerful statements, yet look completely innocuous today.

But were these works created and shown to the public in order to convince the audience of something, or simply to make them feel? And if they are done for the former, why should we consider them art?

>recent birth of the individual never happened in history.
When will this meme end? It's not that enlightenment and post-enlightenment philosophy gave birth to the individual, it's just that they managed to adapt it well enough to the modern nation state. The "citizen" is one of the oldest institutions in the history of law.

You think you sound like Quentin thought he did but you sound like Quentin actually did.
Is that you Quentin? Wanna get high and play some CoD?

This is a fine distinction to make.

underrated

>You guys want the individual to conform to your groupthink "politics"
It's a simple truth that nigh everything has a degree of a political meaning that is non-discrete and not even precisely definite, heavily depending on the source of judgement and extraneous circumstances. The same goes for artistic value.
>were these works created and shown to the public in order to convince the audience of something, or simply to make them feel?
Why are those two mutually exclusive?
>why should we consider them art?
Why shouldn't we?

>It's a simple truth that nigh everything has a degree of a sexual meaning that is non-discrete and not even precisely definite, heavily depending on the source of judgement and extraneous circumstances. The same goes for artistic value.

I changed one word in the off chance that maybe you will realize how much you are generalizing right now.

>Why are those two mutually exclusive?

I exclude them from one another because of how different they are. The person who wants to feel, and make the audience feel (especially the way he feels), is an artist. The person who wants to think, and make the audience think (especially the way he thinks), is not an artist, but something very different. A politician maybe.

>Why shouldn't we?

That's not how you debate. I didn't mention those works, so demonstrate why I should consider them art, especially the Banana which does not make me feel anything at all.

He's only wrong to think that propaganda and art are mutually exclusive. He's also banking off of the negative connotation "propaganda" has (not to say it was given such a connotation without good reason).

No, Jordan just wants reading time to be a safe space from other ideas.

By your sole denial to recognize the politics present in everyday life one can see what you call propaganda is merely political art you disagree with, specially when you consider "Beauty" an absolute should strive for while conveniently ignoring that more than once during western history (much more than once), Beauty (or rather, different conceptions of Beauty, with a B) was used as a political standard as well as aesthetical.
One - not me though - could say the mere study of Art History as we do today, as a progression from proto art to the Renaissance to Romantism to Modernism and so on is a way to classify aesthetics in a political way.

>I changed one word in the off chance that maybe you will realize how much you are generalizing right now.
No, it just goes to show that you failed to realize my point. Everything can be interpreted politically and in a number of ways. It's just silly to suggest we could establish some objective cutoff point where something is "political" or not.
>The person who wants to feel, and make the audience feel (especially the way he feels), is an artist. The person who wants to think, and make the audience think (especially the way he thinks), is not an artist, but something very different. A politician maybe.
If you think that sole purpose of art is aesthetics, then there's no purpose to go on here - you have an understanding of art on the level of petit-bourgeois housewife. Sorry for the ad hominem, but this one is warranted.
>That's not how you debate. I didn't mention those works
I did and they are some of the finest and most revered pieces of art out there. That is the status quo. You are the one holding a position that these shouldn't be considered art because both can most certainly be described as charged with a good amount of political intent. Do defend.

>By your sole denial to recognize the politics present in everyday life

Everyday life =/= art. They are in fact the furthest away from each other as is possible for things to be away from each other.

>one can see what you call propaganda is merely political art you disagree with

Not true at all. I enjoy art, and I consider art as that which makes me feel the highest feelings. I've enjoyed art that affirms feelings of people across all kinds of attitudes and I particularly enjoy art that affirms the existence of all these things in a ceremonious way, like an epic or a space opera that contains various religious, political, and moral ligaments, with no preference to one or the other based on the political, religious, or moral contents but based on how much the work made me feel. You can produce a heart wrenching tragedy or romance or adventure from all kinds of social spheres. Feeling is what I enjoy and appreciate in art.

>Beauty was used as a political standard as well as aesthetical.

How art is (ab)used is irrelevant.

Fuck me. I didn't think this man could be even more of a brainlet than he already has shown himself to be. Of course it's art, absolutely irrespective of it's purpose. It might be good art, might be shit art, but it's art anyways.

Is the Aeneid art? Is Charles Dickens an artist?

Fine then, keep existing in your vaccuum in which romantism never ended so your suburban NEET life can feel more aristocratic, it ain't gonna change the world.
Art's separation of everyday life is a consensual interruption of it, but it's still relegated to a paper in everyday life, as understood by "public", "social", "human", blah blah blah life, you can use any of those terms if you're even trying to understand everyone else.
You can create whatever platitude you want, none of this will ever work as a even personal indicator that something is or isn't propaganda, let alone one that is actually relevant for the rest of humanity. The use of art is what makes it art, anyone even remotely versed in western art history should know it, since this is PRECISELY how our notion of Art started. The only thing irrelevant here are your hot opinions on the issue.

>It's just silly to suggest we could establish some objective cutoff point where something is "political" or not.

It is when you take your generalities as factual. Freud thought all energy was sexual. These generalities are what's silly; they're divorced from the reality they claim to be observing. I can't imagine how creatively bankrupt and boring the people behind them really are.

>you have an understanding of art on the level of petit-bourgeois housewife.

It may be true of housewives, but in this case they really would be more agreeable than your sorry ass. I suppose I am wrong to prefer quality meat over canned dog food because dogs also have this preference when given the option?

>I did and they are some of the finest and most revered pieces of art out there.

Revered among people like you? Yeah, holds no water as an argument for me.

>I consider art as that which makes me feel the highest feelings
Holy... You have to be over 18 to post here.

>so your suburban NEET life can feel more aristocratic

Everything might be political for you, but not for me. It has nothing to do with wanting to feel "more aristocratic." More human, maybe.

>The use of art is what makes it art, anyone even remotely versed in western art history should know it, since this is PRECISELY how our notion of Art started.

Why do you believe the words of dusty library historians over modern day art lovers?

None of what I said is particularly old. You don't sound like an art lover, you sound like an "being an art lover" idea lover

>It is when you take your generalities as factual. Freud thought all energy was sexual. These generalities are what's silly; they're divorced from the reality they claim to be observing. I can't imagine how creatively bankrupt and boring the people behind them really are.
It would be nice if you include a counterargument next time you reply. Literally *everything* can be interpreted to have a political message.
>I suppose I am wrong to prefer quality meat
This is embarrassing. Please read up on art. Gombrich, Harrison and Eco should start you off nicely.
>Revered among people like you?
Revered worldwide. If you're going to deny reality to this extent, why even engage?

>not realizing art is inherently political

>You don't sound like an art lover

But I would if I was talking about how "useful" art is to society rather than how god damn marvelously beautiful and impressive a work of art is to gaze at?

I guess all his work is propaganda then lmao

Art isn't useful at all, it's actually completely useless, and it's, amongst other things, from this uselesness that we manage to even conceptualize what we call "Art". Honestly dude, stop trying to pretend your subjective 17 yo experience of seeing pretty paintings is actually better or more well thought out than the actual conventions of art history.

That doesn't even make sense. Raw aesthetic pleasure that art bring is a major part of it's utility. You seemed like someone with a point at the beginning, yet slowly approaching "contrarian trying to win an internet argument" point. Could you maybe give a couple of examples of what you consider non-political art and political "non-art"?

>Literally *everything* can be interpreted to have a political message.

And that says something about the mind that does so only, like how the mind that thinks everything is sexual is just a "pervert." In the case of political messages, "tool" might be applicable.

>Please read up on art.

You have to eat quality meat, not read about it, to experience it. And I am not saying it is worthless to do any reading, I am just saying that your argument right now is worthless.

>Revered worldwide.

Among people like you.

>And that says something about the mind that does so only
It's not a special worldview of mine. It's basic critical theory, you fucking brainlet. There are still ongoing debates to this day as to Dosto's true intentions and convictions. Both extremes of him being a pious christian and a larping nihilist would allow us to interpret his body of work in completely different light and derive completely different political statements from it. Even more so when we consider the complex political situation in Russia and even more so when we consider his personal connections and *even more so* when we consider his personal affections and vices. You're not going to arrive at some definite answer in the end, you're going to have a giant spectrum of possibilities and where the end result is as reliant on personal interpretation as it is on the facts. I don't know how much of a mental midget do you have to be to not understand this.
>You have to eat quality meat
Fucking kill yourself and your inane food analogies. You're the steak well-done philistine that proclaims anything else to be uneatable.
>Among people like you.
Yes, among the people with at least some semblance of understanding of art. Clearly Manet's body of work is worthless trash and Musee d'Orsay is run by retards because you the smartest underage boy alive don't like it.

>non-political art

I just watched Edge of Tomorrow this past weekend. I thought it was enjoyable as a movie, and started reading All You Need is Kill yesterday as a result, which so far I enjoy as a book (I like the concept and plot of both, but there's of course unique aspects of each medium I'm enjoying as well). I don't see much in the way of politics being driven in these works or in the pleasure derived from them.

>political "non-art"

Hard to say, because a lot of works have artistic value to them, even if they are driven by the desire to convince the audience of a political stance. It's just that there are works with artistic value that don't have them, and artistic value is separate from those contents or desires.

all writing serves a discursive function you twat

>Hard to say, because a lot of works have artistic value to them
Wow, so you can't name anything essentially restating what other two posters told you? Brilliant.
>scifi mass entertainment
>high artistic merit
Dear god. Why are you in a discussion about art?

this. something isn't art if it serves only to promote an ideology ie milk and honey

>It's not a special worldview of mine.

I didn't say it is, but you and everyone who shares it are still special. Get me?

>There are still ongoing debates to this day as to Dosto's true intentions and convictions.

Whatever aspect of them is up for debate is besides the artistry of his writing and storytelling. I don't exactly consider all his work artistic anyway. My favorite of his in White Nights, in fact.

>You're the steak well-done master race that proclaims anything else to be uneatable.

Appreciate the acknowledgement.

>Yes, among the people with at least some semblance of understanding of art.

Among socialites who conform art to their socializing needs, the wealthy who conform art to their status, and historians who conform art to their sterilized view of life from the third floor of the university library you mean. Tell me, what's the political aspect of The Tell-Tale Heart?

This.

Memerson says this shit and then goes on to say that Dostoevsky is his favourite novelist.

>it's not artistic if it has mass entertaining appeal

But I thought the other guy's viewpoint was valid because it was worldwide?

Guess what, dipshit? What I consider art is not what you consider art and vice versa. There's millions who side with me as well. But you have the "academy" on your side, so your thought on the matter is more valid (and not totally more dependent on what the higher social status thinks merely because they have higher social status), right?

>There's millions who side with me as well.
Yes, there are millions of halfwits, that doesn't make their shared views any more impressive or sound.
>But you have the "academy" on your side, so your thought on the matter is more valid
Academia is not united in the view on art and there are many schools of thought and outlooks on philosophy of art. My position is not "more valid" it simply is valid, being intrinsically logically coherent and consistent. There are many different and opposing ones that are too. What isn't valid is "art is whatever I deem appropriate to call art". I'm more or less convinced I'm replying to a child now, so have a last (You) and good night. Good luck with your flat-earther crusade in art theory.

A lot of medieval European paintings and statues were commissioned by the Catholic Church. The Church commisssioned them for purposes that can be considered political, namely to increase the power and prestige of the Church in an era where the Church is a potent political actor. Are they not art?

who gives a fuck what he thinks

>My position is not "more valid" it simply is valid

Damn, the conceit in this one!

I'll leave you with a quote from my good friend, German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:

>What is essential in art remains its perfection of existence, its production of perfection and plenitude; art is essentially affirmation, blessing, deification of existence— What does a pessimistic art signify? Is it not a contradictio?— Yes.— Schopenhauer is wrong when he says that certain works of art serve pessimism. Tragedy does not teach "resignation"— To represent terrible and questionable things is in itself an instinct for power and magnificence in an artist: he does not fear them— There is no such thing as pessimistic art— Art affirms. Job affirms.— But Zola? But the Goncourts?— The things they display are ugly: but that they display them comes from pleasure in the ugly— It's no good! If you think otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.

tl;dr a genius does not see politics as essential to art. More valid than anyone else you could namedrop. Peterson is wrong, but you are more-so.

>I didn't say it is, but you and everyone who shares it are still special
You don't make your case any better by throwing an "oily smarts" ad hom.
>I'm talking about the psychological temperament of artists.
>Whatever aspect of artist's true intentions and convictions is up for debate is besides the artistry
Well, this was a great waste of time. Thanks for playing, autistic retard.

To be honest, my only problem with Peterson. It's such an impossible high standard.

Because he says it like he want to author to just "come up" with something that proves something.

No one said politics is essential to art, what everyone is arguing is that it's impossible to separate both in the first place, something which Nietzsche refuses to touch upon (I'll admit I'm not sure how prevalent the notion of life as political in itself was in his times, not even if it existed, but it doesn't change the fact that today, this is how we came to see it, and most people who aren't autists playing le enlightened aesthete came to agree with).

>No one said politics is essential to art
>what everyone is arguing is that politics is inseparable from art

Alright...

and?

>You can derive morals from their works, but that's just the audience bastardizing the plays because they are too stupid to experience them otherwise

Read Aristotle's Poetics you illiterate.

>What matters is the intention, the legitimacy of what's expressed.
i think thats what he was saying though

I guess pic related isn't art. Nice to learn something new every day

>Jordan Memerson says anything with a political purpose in it can't be art
>cites Dostoevsky as one of his favorite authors
The Brothers Karamazov literally features an entire chapter where Ivan argues with a liberal (the actual definition of liberal, not the American buzzword for the brainlets who browse this board and don't actually read) about how the separation of church and state is an inherently flawed concept and if ecclesiastical courts took over society would objectively be better

>Except 99% of the so-called Art produced these days is ostensibly political.
Where does that statistic come from?

Politics is essential to human life, art is a part of human life, but art can be made with no aparent political intent, it's just bound to generate political meanings once it's out in the world

>Politics is essential to human life

Define politics. We've been around for many years before civilization existed.

We've been through this already, and pre-historic "art" isn't art by the western standards, we only use the term because it had a very different social function from art (another thing we've been through as well).

i'm seriously tired of arguing with you so just read pic related if you want to know more, I'm off to get drunk and forget this useless discssion.

Anything created by a person is propaganda as it will naturally be instilled with the values of that individual