Does art really affect politics?

pecksniff

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Posts
22,077
It is sometimes tacitly assumed that artists and fiction writers and musicians have some kind of influence over the political zeitgeist. It seems to me that they merely react to it and comment upon it -- the roots of any changes lie elsewhere.
 
Some art does e.g. Picasso's Guernica.

Some cartoons can by pointing out the fallibility of politicians.

Politician's reactions to art can be more than the artist intended e.g. the Nazis banning all non-Aryan art and burning books they disapproved of.

But most art? Probably not.
 
Communist art is very much enjoyed by you and your kind::D

https://i.imgur.com/4g28Otrl.jpg

I'm fairly certain no Communist painted that.

There is such thing as Communist art -- see socialist realism -- but it is doubtful whether its existence ever made any political difference. But at least it left a legacy in the stations of the Moscow Metro, probably the prettiest subway system in the world.
 
Last edited:
I'm fairly certain no Communist painted that.

There is such thing as Communist art -- see socialist realism -- but it is doubtful whether its existence ever made any political difference. But at least it left a legacy in the stations of the Moscow Metro, probably the prettiest subway system in the world.

That subway probably has human bones mixed in with the concrete.

More art to make Peck smile:

https://i.imgur.com/TGtAw8ol.jpg

:rolleyes:
 
To a certain extent I think it's rather obvious.

This is why propaganda comes in such artistic forms as posters, movies, song and dance, food even.

Politics is downstream of culture.
 
To a certain extent I think it's rather obvious.

This is why propaganda comes in such artistic forms as posters, movies, song and dance, food even.

Politics is downstream of culture.

There was a lot of anti-Vietnam-War art in the 1960s and '70s -- but the government did not end the war until it was damned good and ready to end it, for its own reasons.
 
But, again, how did the existence of this sort of thing actually make any political difference?

It had an entire population of enslaved people marching happily arm in arm into the sunsets of 69 years of failure and death.
 
There was a lot of anti-Vietnam-War art in the 1960s and '70s -- but the government did not end the war until it was damned good and ready to end it, for its own reasons.

Not all propaganda campaigns are successful.

Doesn't mean the obvious, preferred and most effective format for promoting their political ideals and values was cultural.

Culture drives politics.

Always has and likely always will.
 
Absolutely it does. CS Lewis illustrated this brilliantly in "That Hideous Strength."
 
It was propaganda and brainwash a little less sophisticated than what the DNC employs against Americans today.

Haven't seen much art of any kind come out of the DNC, apart from the campaign posters and such both parties use.
 
Haven't seen much art of any kind come out of the DNC, apart from the campaign posters and such both parties use.

Come to think of it, there aren't even campaign songs any more. There was a time when that was routine, at least at the presidential level -- I once heard Garrison Keillor do a retrospective on them.

The DNC does have a convention song, "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow," always played during the final balloon-drop -- but I think "Time Is on My Side" would be a better choice.
 
Back
Top