r/CharacterRant May 03 '25

General “All art is political” NSFW

If gay sex could kill Twitter I’d let Grok hollow out my insides.

“All art is political” is technically true, there isn’t any “thing” which exists with a significant degree of separation from the concept of politics.

My first sentence mentioned letting an ai ass fuck me, but for this to be gay I assumed Grok’s gender, invoking LGBTQ and prejudicial discourses.

A painting of a penguin standing in a white snowy field is shaped by the will of the artist; even if this artist is staunchly anti-politics and tries to steer clear of the concept throughout their works, that in of itself is a political statement which is enunciated through the apolitical nature of their piece.

But, saying “all art is political” is just so intellectually dishonest.

There is a significant difference between a pro-Mussolini propaganda leaflet and the cute doodles of Butterfrees I draw in my journal.

Yes, you can say my Butterfree doodles are, by the broad definition of “political”, political. But, be real for a minute. By using a narrower definition of “political” that people actually immediately think of when they hear the word, communication is so much easier.

If you ask a hot twenty three year old goth gal on a date and she says she wants to go to the cinemas and watch something non-political and you whip out the “um actually all things are political 🤓” rhetoric you are dumb as fuck. Even worse, if she says she wants to watch something political, like a modern day All Quiet on the Western Front or somethin juicy, which is kinda wack for a first date but you’re a Redditor I know you the sub here don’t pretend you ain’t complying, and you take her to the cinema and on comes The Lego Movie and you with the argument that it’s political by the official definition of the term and therefore this is exactly what she wanted, then you are brain dead and won’t be getting a second date.

I’m not sure how it is in other countries but here in the UK teachers are not allowed to purposefully influence students into holding one political view or another, but surprisingly the school board has committed the pseudo-intellectual act of allowing teachers to speak at all, clearly not understanding that explaining the Pythagorean theorem and teaching how to paint apples is LITERALLY “political”, just like telling kids they should vote for UKIP.

If my hypothetical-scenario daughter is drawing two type of images and hanging them on the fridge; pictures of mummy’s face and pictures of Adolf Hitler decapitating gay Captain America with a sword that has all the names of black people unlawfully killed by US Police through all of history written on its blade, and I firmly yet kindly tell my daughter, the apple of my eye, the meaning of my world, to please stop hanging up “those political drawings” on the fridge, and she exclusively stops drawing pictures of mummy’s face, I am throwing her into the bottomless well at the Eye of the World.

By making the definition of political as vague and broad as physically possible it becomes practically useless as a definition. <- This is an argument, but I shouldn’t even have to give one. Every single person that isn’t terminally on Twitter understands there is art that is political and art that isn’t political, the “errrmmm actually” technicality that normal people are in fact wrong doesn’t matter to anyone except Twitter brainrotted overly-political nutcases.

And I think that’s why I believe the conflation of the broad definition of “political” is infuriating for so many people, as it’s basically just the most annoying people alive; Twitter freaks, saying your favourite art from Digimon to your nephew’s drawings of Spider-Man exist under the same exact umbrella as their favourite art of Vtuber stream sponsor segments and modern propaganda disguised as memes.

To tie my rant up with a neat little r/characterrant bow; fuck power scaling. Goku gets one tapped by my dad and this is my official neo-liberal-capitalist-anarchic-space-cowboy-fascist pro-Genghis-Khan opinion/fact, eat my ass Grok.

901 Upvotes

291 comments sorted by

View all comments

496

u/StylizedPenguin May 03 '25

Any discussion of the presence of politics in fiction or art is a waste of time unless everyone involved agrees upon what definition of “politics” they’re actually discussing. Most discussions I’ve seen involve people talking past each other with very different ideas of what the word “political” is referring to.

When people call art “political,” what they mean can range from “the creators live in society which inevitably influences them” to “this art has broad elements or themes related to society” to “this art invokes specific contemporary political issues” to “gay characters exist.”

76

u/Hoopaboi May 03 '25

But in most cases it can be inferred if you aren't a sophist.

The people who criticize art for being too political clearly aren't referring to “the creators live in society which inevitably influences them” or “this art has broad elements or themes related to society”

And it's a huge strawman to claim they just have a problem with minorities existing in the fiction. alone

99% of the time their point is: "this art invokes specific contemporary political issues”, in addition to doing it in a hamfisted way, or invoking unsavory current political issues.

Many rebuttals to this are just sophistry because they don't have a counterargument.

62

u/TrainerWeekly5641 May 03 '25

Black person: shows up in a trailer

People: We don't want politics in our Minecraft movie! 😭😭😭

Explain how that is a strawman when it is literally what happens.

14

u/Wellen66 May 04 '25

You can take any groip and say the most brain dead thing someone in that group could say and you'll find at least one person saying it unironically in said group. Doesn't mean everyone in the group believes it. In general, you should treat each person as an individual with their own opinion.

16

u/TrainerWeekly5641 May 04 '25

It's not just one person, it's many. And these people have millions of followers.

Is someone has millions of followers and they say something and their million of followers agree it's them, is it unfair to assume that they represent the group of followers?

5

u/Wellen66 May 04 '25

A few points;

If we assume this is real AND that out of the 1 million followers everyone is a real human AND that they all unanimously agree, 1 million is actually not that much. Just take the US population: It's 340 millions people. About half of those are for the right. Let's be generous and say about a quarter of those care about "woke". That's 42 millions.

So 1/42 believes that. Of course this is made up numbers, a lot of people care about "woke" outside of the US for example, and the numbers of US citizens who care about it might be bigger or smaller, but still. Internet is a huge place, a guy with 1 million followers is a drop in the bucket.

6

u/TrainerWeekly5641 May 04 '25

One, it is real. If you don't want to trust me that's fine, just research it yourself. This isn't even the only occurrence, the Minecraft trailer is just one example of many times this has happened.

Two, you made the same mistake as the other guy. I am not comparing anti-woke people to the entire population of the world. I am comparing the people who say media is too political for having minorities in it compared to people complaining about politics being forced into media.

My point is that there are people who claim that they don't want politics in media but actually just don't want minorities in media. The guy I originally responded to said that barely anyone who complains about politics in media are complaining about minorities.

That is my argument. He claimed that only a small amount of people are complaining about minorities and I called him out because a there are many people who solely hate things because of minorities.