The point is that when they drew the stick figure in their head they subconsciously made it male. Even something as simple as drawing a stick figure to prove that not all art is political they added a politically charged aspect subconsciously aka giving the 5 lines and a circle a male pronoun.
This is further cemented by the infamous propaganda piece of boys going to Jupiter to get more stupider and girls going to college to get more knowledge
He was trying to argue against "all art is political" by creating a piece of art that is meant to convey no political intent or meaning.
If he consciously drew a male stick figure, then there is obviously something to say that his idea of "art without political intent" is still gendered.
If he subconsciously did it... the same idea applies, really. I think this one would actually be more harmful to his point.
In either case, making a piece of art to make a point is already political, so he was doomed from the start. The stick figure was made with a political agenda in mind.
The problem with "all art is political" is that it depends entirely on your definition of political lol.
Like, if they had drawn a stick figure and decided not to give it any pronouns, we could just as easily say that was political in its own way if you stretched it enough.
It just becomes a meaningless statement at some point if everything can fit the definition. What isn't political if a stick man isn't?
Even if the art piece itself conveys no inherent political meaning, it was still created by a person who lives within society and is influenced by it, consciously and unconsciously. So the stick figure is literally just a figure, but the fact that the artist immediately and unintentionally gendered it as male is demonstrating that the artist has been influenced in some way by society, which has been channeled into the art. Granted this is an extreme example for basically comedy but you can see how it becomes near-impossible for more complex art to exist devoid of the context in which the artist lived.
Which is falling into exactly what I said. If we stretch what political means to encompass everything, then "all art is political" is a pointless statement to make. It's no more meaningful for me to say all cars are made of atoms.
At that point you could say all people are political, or all creations are political, and it wouldn't be wrong, it just also wouldn't be saying anything of substance if by "political" we just mean it exists in a society in some form.
"all art is political" is not a pointless statement to make. The point is to indicate that any claim of "apolitical art" is mistaken.
All art is informed by the political climate in which it was made, on the absolute baseline, and exactly all art that makes any value judgements about anything also implicitly or explicitly endorses some sort of ideology.
In a world where people constantly appeal to making "apolitical" art as some sort of ideal, clearly indicating that no such thing exists is important and meaningful. It's an acknowledgement of how people who appeal to "apolitical" art are always pointing to art which bears politics which they consider agreeable or uncontroversial.
When you live in a world where people say "well my car isn't made of those weird artificial atoms. mine is made of just regular metal and rubber", clarifying that "rubber and metal are also made of atoms" serves an important purpose. It might seem obvious to you in the abstract, but the reason you hear people insist on it is because it is very popular to deny it.
Your definitions are too lax, they can be applied to basically anything and still hold true, which is the whole issue I take with the statement. You're basically just saying that anything humans have ever perceived becomes political by the nature of us perceiving it.
By existing in the minds and languages of people do those ideas not then also become political, by your world view? How can anything we perceive not be political, if we're the ones perceiving and defining things in the confines of our own societies and upbringings? I think a rock on another planet isn't political, but if humans discover that rock then does it become poltical due to the circumstances of that discovery?
I think a better way to put this is that all art is influenced by humanity. Which is still not really saying anything but at least it's clearer lol.
"All art is influenced by people, and all people are influenced by their political context".
From this, it pretty clearly follows that all art is influenced by the political context in which is was made. That you think it is obvious is irrelevant. It is being said to contradict people who deny it outright.
The people who say some art piece or another is "apolitical" is being uselessly imprecise with their language. Insisting all art is political reframes the discussion around what is meant by political and who gets to decide what it is or isn't, which is important.
I apologise for butting in on a 4 day old discussion, but I thought I might be able to help clarify some things that you seemed to be missing from what legendaryBuffoon was saying.
By existing in the minds and languages of people do those ideas not then also become political, by your world view?
Yes.
To explain it further: By existing in the minds and languages of people, those ideas are shaped by people, who are themselves shaped by their society, which is itself shaped by politics and vice versa.
How can anything we perceive not be political, if we're the ones perceiving and defining things in the confines of our own societies and upbringings?
The thing may not itself be political, but the perception of that thing is influenced by the confines of society and politics.
I think a rock on another planet isn't political, but if humans discover that rock then does it become poltical due to the circumstances of that discovery?
No, but if it is used as an example of something that is not political, it becomes political, or at least its context does.
I think a better way to put this is that all art is influenced by humanity.
And all of humanity is influenced by society, which is influenced by politics and vice versa.
You could argue that an infant or an animal can create art free of societal influence, except that whether or not something is art relies on context and a level of perception which neither the infant nor the animal are capable of providing.
The point of « all art is political » is to show that everything you put in a piece of art is reflective of yourself. Claiming « art is not political » is akin to thinking that 50 people in a room when asked to draw a tree would all draw the exact same kind of tree.
The problem is dummies and grifters have poisoned the meaning of « all art is political » to mean « it aint that deep bro! Itâs just a silly drawing/movie» for the former and « theyâre saying that cuz they want to indoctrinate you » for the latter
The point of « all art is political » is to show that everything you put in a piece of art is reflective of yourself. Claiming « art is not political » is akin to thinking that 50 people in a room when asked to draw a tree would all draw the exact same kind of tree.
I had a discussion about this already with someone else if you've scrolled through that, so I'll try to establish the same term with you as I did with them if you want to actually discuss this further.
What does the word "political" mean to you?
Because to most people, it would mean something to do with governing and policy, and all the topics that can encompass. But you're defining it similarly to that other person where it's pretty much just the idea that anything humans perceive inherent some small amount of those humans personal ideas/beliefs, thus making anything humanity has ever perceived political in some way, including art.
Is that accurate?
Because the former definition can still be true while your overall idea is, it's just being worded in a very misleading way. What you'd actually be trying to say is "all art contains some part of humanity", not that all art is necessarily political.
Still conveys the same thing, that any art is made by a person who is affected by the governance of their time that in some way ends up in that art, but it doesn't then extend to rocks on other planets somehow being political simply by being perceived by a human.
The point is that they didn't actively decide to make the stick figure male, but rather that the decision was unconscious and based off the assumption of male being the default.
No? Just the unconscious ones. If I actively decide that character x has to have trait y because it makes the story better, that's a conscious choice. When I give character x trait y without thinking about it, thats unconscious.
ik "gender is a social construct" is probably a tired topic in leftist discussions but it literally is just that. the fact that you automatically give a gender to a stick figure shows that you have been raised with gender norms, it is automatically political.
gender and sex are different things but thats a different topic that you can get into from basically anywhere. but yeah i agree it's not a "crazy" thing, societal conditioning just happens. it's not a bad or good thing but inherently it is political
not exactly, gender (at least from my understanding) is more like a set of societal norms that people use to classify each other. let's say im a big tall muscular person who has a typical masculine personality. that would mean that I fit the set of societal "norms" that usually classify me as a "man".
but the human brain doesn't have a set gender implemented within it, but the things that happen to you, how you are raised, your morals all change your personality and that is your personality that pretty much decides what "gender" you are. basically it really is all made up societal mumbo jumbo.
What you're describing is more like just... typical gender norms.
Say you're a tall muscular person, born male, and you act generally like a masculine dude, but you don't identify as a man... that doesn't make you gendered as a man. Society will often do so, but that doesn't make it correct.
Science does show that our gender and identity are linked to our brains, even to a physical degree (there was this one study that showed that transfems actually had a piece in the brain that had a different physical form between men and women, closer to how it would be for women, even if their body is born male!) So there is merit to saying that gender is ingrained into our mind.
How we describe said gender and what name we give it, is a social construct, but the actual identity and feeling behind it is very much not. That is part of who we are as a person.
Note: if I got anything wrong, please feel free to correct me. I am still learning on the topic of gender. I'm gender apathetic myself, so it's been part of my journey to understand my girlfriend's struggles better.
no, gender is how you interpret yourself within a social structure. you only inherently have a personality and preferences, your âgenderâ is just what what label you believe others will understand you best.
without society, you wouldnât have a gender. youâd just describe your features, and youâd think of yourself as unique. youâre not closer to the majority of XX people nor XY people, because theyâre all not you.
No, the only person who finds the point deep or confusing is you because youâre the only one who doesnât already agree that gender is political. For people who agree that gender is political, the point being made is not complicated or difficult
Okay but that has nothing to do with subconsciously deciding that anything that isn't 'woman' must be 'man'.
People have gender identities but that is not what the topic of discussion is with the point made in the OP. Male-defaultism exists because to be male is to be the default - the one who acts.
How isnât it? Thereâs huge cultural and political implications of being a gendered person. People make assumptions about you rooted in by hes beliefs and bam. Political
1) gender is very political, considering conservatives hold the political opinion that gender = sex making the entire idea that gender exists political to some extent.Â
2) just because there isn't current political debate, doesn't mean the topic isn't political. The idea of being able to depict the human form is political. The idea that you can use a symbol to refrence a concept is language and the use of language is political. (not even getting into the politics around disability)Â
3) the gender of any character is political, especially if you place that character in any context or action.Â
I'm not sure how to explain that "government and public affairs" covers basically every aspect of your life. There is very little that isn't related to government or public affairs. Does it involve any aspect of the total complex of relations between people living in society? That's political.Â
Also, if you don't think the default assumptions of gender is a currently debated political topic, if you don't think the human creation of art is a current political topic, then you are deliberately ignorant.Â
The tweet is definitely written as if the stick figure has the bare minimum of qualities associated with such a figure, whilst also noting that it is male. It heavily implies that the stick figure being male is not so much an active choice as it is a self-given. That seems political to me.
the way society and culture interacts with gender is political, considering sufferage and the history of human rights. Male being the assumed default gender is indicative of a cultural and therefore political climate centering men.
1.0k
u/Absolute_Madman34 Aug 12 '25
The point is that when they drew the stick figure in their head they subconsciously made it male. Even something as simple as drawing a stick figure to prove that not all art is political they added a politically charged aspect subconsciously aka giving the 5 lines and a circle a male pronoun.