Art.....

[canpakes]

Adding to my assertion that all art is in some way political...

In what way is a painting of a landscape political?

[huckelberry]

Oooh, look. They’re examining a new small art installation entitled, ‘رشوة’.

Ha!

This image makes me think of the possibility of someone having plates of brass, a material produced in New England (late 18 early 19th century)and presenting them as gold plates.

Of course in this image there may be real gold involved but they look so cheap that they might as well be brass.

Somehow Trump wants to look rich and to my eyes he looks a bit silly. But I am not one he is trying to impress. I do not even understand those he impresses.

[huckelberry]

In what way is a painting of a landscape political?

I do not recognize this painting.

In terms of form clarity, handling of light and dark, space and atmospherics I think Bierstadt. All the dead bison as if natives did the destruction done by Europeans seems to hold a political edge at least in an apologetic for the conquest sense.

[canpakes]

I do not recognize this painting.

In terms of form clarity, handling of light and dark, space and atmospherics I think Bierstadt. All the dead bison as if natives did the destruction done by Europeans seems to hold a political edge at least in an apologetic for the conquest sense.

That’s right, Huck; it is indeed Albert Bierstadt, and this work of his was a commentary on the fate of both the native bison and Native Americans themselves in the wake of western expansion.

[Dr. Shades]

In what way is a painting of a landscape political?

In what way is a painting of a bare landscape, without evidence of humans, political?

[canpakes]

In what way is a painting of a bare landscape, without evidence of humans, political?

Bierstadt again.

To quote from another source which encapsulates the idea better and faster than I can type it:

“In these images, humans are shown as small—practically insignificant before the infinite grandeur of the wild. When they do appear, they are clearly at the mercy of their surrounding environment—tenants in a world they may inhabit but will never conquer. When farms or houses are shown, they are similarly diminutive in stature, and their existence constitutes a harmony rather than an expansion or victory. In this way, painters advocated a respectful and pacifist relation between the order of society and the ungoverned splendor of nature …”

“(Hudson River School artwork) construct(s) a sense of national identity and a body of political philosophy that still echo today. Now, as the issue of environmental preservation looms ever larger, the artworks themselves remain relevant as potent reminders of the parts of our world we have already lost, and all that we stand to gain from immediate and concerted action.”

https://www.aaronreedphotography.com/ga ... -painters/

[Morley]

Adding to my assertion that all art is in some way political...

In what way is a painting of a landscape political?

Canpakes and huck explained it beautifully.

I'll add that any painting (even a landscape) can also be considered to be political, in that historically in the West we've only recognized certain classes of people as painters. Women have been largely excluded, as has anyone of color.


It's not just culture that suppresses art, however. Governments can officially censor art. The Soviets excluded paintings based on not just content, but on style.

So did the Nazis. This landscape painting by Ernst Kirchner was considered deviant and thought to represent chaos and psychological turmoil. The colors were too outlandish. German landscapes were supposed to be either serene and bucolic or reflect the magnificence of the Third Reich--and this one didn't qualify.


Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Winter Landscape in Moonlight (1919).


That I, personally, am allowed to paint and exhibit a landscape anyway that I want is due to the political climate where I live.

[Morley]

I'm going to quickly add that Markk's focus on Grandma Moses also qualifies as political art. Moses was recognized at the time because the political climate in the culture (and in the art world) had shifted to include contemporary artists who had less formal training. She was fortunate to be working at a time when there was a move to embrace folk art as an acknowledged and legitimate form.

[Dr. Shades]

In what way is a painting of a bare landscape, without evidence of humans, political?

To quote from another source which encapsulates the idea better and faster than I can type it:

“In these images, humans are shown as small—practically insignificant before the infinite grandeur of the wild. When they do appear, they are clearly at the mercy of their surrounding environment—tenants in a world they may inhabit but will never conquer. When farms or houses are shown, they are similarly diminutive in stature, and their existence constitutes a harmony rather than an expansion or victory. In this way, painters advocated a respectful and pacifist relation between the order of society and the ungoverned splendor of nature …”

Key words: Without evidence of humans.

In what way is a painting of a landscape political?

Canpakes and huck explained it beautifully.

I'll add that any painting (even a landscape) can also be considered to be political, in that historically in the West we've only recognized certain classes of people as painters. Women have been largely excluded, as has anyone of color.

By that loose standard, merely being born is political.

That I, personally, am allowed to paint and exhibit a landscape anyway that I want is due to the political climate where I live.

But the landscape itself, assuming an absence of evidence of humans, isn't political.

[canpakes]

To quote from another source which encapsulates the idea better and faster than I can type it:

“In these images, humans are shown as small—practically insignificant before the infinite grandeur of the wild. When they do appear, they are clearly at the mercy of their surrounding environment—tenants in a world they may inhabit but will never conquer. When farms or houses are shown, they are similarly diminutive in stature, and their existence constitutes a harmony rather than an expansion or victory. In this way, painters advocated a respectful and pacifist relation between the order of society and the ungoverned splendor of nature …”

Key words: Without evidence of humans.

Canpakes and huck explained it beautifully.

I'll add that any painting (even a landscape) can also be considered to be political, in that historically in the West we've only recognized certain classes of people as painters. Women have been largely excluded, as has anyone of color.

By that loose standard, merely being born is political.

That I, personally, am allowed to paint and exhibit a landscape anyway that I want is due to the political climate where I live.

But the landscape itself, assuming an absence of evidence of humans, isn't political.

You missed the second paragraph in blue text.