Art.....

[Morley]

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.

The person who is born Rohingya in Myanmar would agree--merely being born is political. We're born into countries with borders and ethnicities with bounded definitions. So yeah, I'd agree that 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.

If you assume the absence of humans to look at, to react to, and to possibly censor the landscape, you'd be correct--then the landscape wouldn't be political. But without humans to look at, to react to, and to possibly censor it, the painted landscape also wouldn't be considered a work of art. What we judge as a work of art is socially defined, which makes it political.

...

I'm wandering off into the weeds. I feel obligated to concede, right here, that when I argue that all art is political, I'm taking a stance that's not always popular or agreed upon. Many artists try to avoid painting anything that they deem to be political--as art to them is a refuge from the world of politics. Others think that to say 'all art is political' dilutes the meaning of politics--because if everything is political, then why do we even have the concept of 'the political.' They would say, "How is me creating a piece of glazed pottery an act of politics?" I certainly understand and sympathize with that argument, and used to hold it myself. However, I’ve increasing developed a slightly different point of view. Maybe it's our present climate. Then again, maybe it's just me.

...

I've too loud of a voice in this room. I'm going visit the drink table and go for a stroll.

[Dr. Shades]

Key words: Without evidence of humans.

You missed the second paragraph in blue text.

Let's examine the second paragraph in blue text:

“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 …”

How is "humans are shown," "When they do appear," and "farms or houses are shown" somehow equal "without evidence of humans?"

Educate me here, 'cause I'm just not understanding your logic.

[Dr. Shades]

By that loose standard, merely being born is political.

The person who is born Rohingya in Myanmar would agree--merely being born is political. We're born into countries with borders and ethnicities with bounded definitions. So yeah, I'd agree that merely being born is political.

In that case, everything is political, and the word "political" loses all meaning.

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

If you assume the absence of humans to look at, to react to, and to possibly censor the landscape, you'd be correct--then the landscape wouldn't be political. But without humans to look at, to react to, and to possibly censor it, the painted landscape also wouldn't be considered a work of art. What we judge as a work of art is socially defined, which makes it political.

By that standard, everything is socially defined, which again means everything is political, so the word "political" loses all meaning.

[canpakes]

You missed the second paragraph in blue text.

Let's examine the second paragraph in blue text:

“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 …”

How is "humans are shown," "When they do appear," and "farms or houses are shown" somehow equal "without evidence of humans?"

Educate me here, 'cause I'm just not understanding your logic.

This is the second paragraph in blue text:

“(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.”

The Hudson River School style is ‘human optional’, which is why ‘when’ is used in the first blue paragraph. The quoted site shows several examples of the style, most of which aren’t showing people as part of the image. The waterfall painting by Bierstadt is also ‘landscape only’, without evidence of humans, unless you want to include the artist.

[Morley]

The person who is born Rohingya in Myanmar would agree--merely being born is political. We're born into countries with borders and ethnicities with bounded definitions. So yeah, I'd agree that merely being born is political.

In that case, everything is political, and the word "political" loses all meaning.

If you assume the absence of humans to look at, to react to, and to possibly censor the landscape, you'd be correct--then the landscape wouldn't be political. But without humans to look at, to react to, and to possibly censor it, the painted landscape also wouldn't be considered a work of art. What we judge as a work of art is socially defined, which makes it political.

By that standard, everything is socially defined, which again means everything is political, so the word "political" loses all meaning.

Or it simply means that everything is political.

It means that being political is a part of being human. Every human breathes. 'Breathing' still has meaning. Every human is social; the word 'social' still has meaning. Every human is part of culture. 'Culture' still has meaning. Some concepts are ubiquitous among humans.

A traditional definition of politics says that politics are anywhere power and resources are distributed. So yeah, everything is political and the word still has meaning.

[Kishkumen]

Shades,

You need to read Aristotle, and you need to answer my email.

[huckelberry]

Political?
I am sitting a hospital waiting room for a non-emergency appointment. There is a pleasant semiabstract picture on the wall. A couple of autumnal leaf shapes upon semi rectangular shapes, style established 1950s. It is OK. Pleasant .Well it's not exciting instead is closer to boring. Is that a sort of hospital politics?

Often when something is described as political someone means beating the drum of a political cause. I can understand how thinking in rhose terms Shades rejects landscape as political. Thinking of Utah there is a pleasant first half 20 century Utah landscape style. I would be uncertain how to think of it in political terms. Perhaps guarding local.

I think I see Morleys point that all art is created in space between person value and value of audiences. Social values and their negotiation is away of thinking of political.

[huckelberry]

Morley. It may be that you are considering that 19th century French landscape had some connection, or is it approximate parallel to socialist leaning political concerns. I do not think that means all Barbizon painters were a united political party. In fact associations might be quite flexible.

Or one could think of it from the angle of acceptance of impressionism involved a political campaign and a resisting political campaign.

[Morley]

Morley. It may be that you are considering that 19th century French landscape had some connection, or is it approximate parallel to socialist leaning political concerns. I do not think that means all Barbizon painters were a united political party. In fact associations might be quite flexible.

Or one could think of it from the angle of acceptance of impressionism involved a political campaign and a resisting political campaign.

Huck, Sebastian Smee has a book out on this: Paris in Ruins: Love, War, and the Birth of Impressionism. I think he makes pretty convincing case that Impressionism needed the impetus of the political unrest that was Paris at the time. A lot of the best (and worst) movements in art have come about because of politics.

[huckelberry]

Morley. It may be that you are considering that 19th century French landscape had some connection, or is it approximate parallel to socialist leaning political concerns. I do not think that means all Barbizon painters were a united political party. In fact associations might be quite flexible.

Or one could think of it from the angle of acceptance of impressionism involved a political campaign and a resisting political campaign.

Huck, Sebastian Smee has a book out on this: Paris in Ruins: Love, War, and the Birth of Impressionism. I think he makes pretty convincing case that Impressionism needed the impetus of the political unrest that was Paris at the time. A lot of the best (and worst) movements in art have come about because of politics.

Morley,
Sounds like that could be an interesting book. One might say seeing an existential dimension to impressionism's search for an immediacy of the moment.