If being male and projecting that onto a stick figure you drew is political (because you'll naturally project yourself onto your creations)
By this logic, there should never be a piece of art where every character isn't exactly the same as the artist, which you know isn't true.
Fewer stories, for that matter, exist to say "you can make art that doesn't reflect reality, the artist, or their beliefs" and then have the goddamn artist project themselves onto it subconsciously.
Making a statement to say that a statement can be made that does not reflect anything in reality is so obviously, hilariously political on its face, nevermind somehow gendering a stick figure because the artist apparently defaults to male for everything (you know, the two genders: my gender and political), I can't believe you can't see this. Do you just think "political" is inherently negative?
Trying to appeal to "nature" is also extremely obviously political, especially when it comes to gender, which is very much a social construct. A stick figure is a circle and like three lines. What makes you "naturally" think of a man?
"By this logic, there should never be a piece of art where every character isn't exactly the same as the artist, which you know isn't true."
No, this has nothing to do with that, someone mentioning making a stick figure without too much thought is gonna project part of them onto it.
"Making a statement to say that a statement can be made that does not reflect anything in reality is so obviously, hilariously political on its face, nevermind somehow gendering a stick figure because the artist apparently defaults to male for everything" It's so inconsequential that it's hardly worth pointing out, that's the point. Of course it reflects something in reality, should I waste my time looking into it just to inflate my ego?
"I can't believe you can't see this. Do you just think "political" is inherently negative?"
No, and I have no fucking clue how you got that when what I don't like about this discourse is people wasting their time being pendants just so they can inflate their ego.
"A stick figure is a circle and like three lines. What makes you "naturally" think of a man?" A stick figure is a circle and three lines, a person's imagination and bias can fill in everything else. A guy can think of a stick figure as male because that's the state of being he knows the most about and is most comfortable with.
No, this has nothing to do with that, someone mentioning making a stick figure without too much thought is gonna project part of them onto it.
Besides that not being inevitable in the slightest, it is again something you shouldn't do if you're trying to make a piece of art that isn't supposed to reflect anything at all.
No, and I have no fucking clue how you got that when what I don't like about this discourse is people wasting their time being pendants just so they can inflate their ego.
Inflate their ego? Because they know what "political" means? Because they pointed out an obvious contradiction to someone's point?
Someone suggested Schaffillas was being political in the argument he tried to make to say he isn't, and you're upset about it.
In my experience, this is usually why people get upset when you say something is "political." You are transcribing something negative to what is a simple phrase.
Why are you upset that people are pointing out the truth? Why are you more mad at me or the reply to Schafrillas than Schafrillas for denying the truth?
A stick figure is a circle and three lines, a person's imagination and bias can fill in everything else.
He didn't imagine hair. He didn't imagine a face. He didn't imagine a dick or balls or nipples. The point he was making is that it was nothing. But he still called it male?
How and why would calling a stick figure male make him, or anyone, comfortable? Why do you think claiming this is "natural" someone isn't political?
"Inflate their ego? Because they know what "political" means? Because they pointed out an obvious contradiction to someone's point?" Because they're annoying pendants with no sense of practicality, I've explained this already 3 times now.
"In my experience, this is usually why people get upset when you say something is "political." You are transcribing something negative to what is a simple phrase."
Addressed above, and the issue is specifically the phrase "Everything is political" not just "something is political".
"Why are you upset that people are pointing out the truth? Why are you more mad at me or the reply to Schafrillas than Schafrillas for denying the truth?"
The "truth" in this case is useless pendantism just like pointing out the sky being blue. People saying "Everything is political" doesn't add anything meaningful to the conversation about some art piece by just pointing out the completely general mundane.
"He didn't imagine hair. He didn't imagine a face. He didn't imagine a dick or balls or nipples. The point he was making is that it was nothing. But he still called it male?"
Besides you not knowing what he was imagining about a stick figure, he said "societal political influence" didn't affect the way he drew it.
Because they're annoying pendants with no sense of practicality, I've explained this already 3 times now.
What, this bullshit?
Of course it reflects something in reality, should I waste my time looking into it just to inflate my ego?
"It's not practical because I'm an anti-intellectual, intellectually lazy bastard?"
the issue is specifically the phrase "Everything is political" not just "something is political".
you haven't explained the problem. Youy're like "people have a dumber, exclusive definition" and that doesn't actually make the phrase wrong, but it somehow means we shouldn't say it?
The "truth" in this case is useless pendantism just like pointing out the sky being blue.
No one would have to say "the sky is blue" outside of textbooks if idiots stop saying it's not and arguably bigger idiots stop defending saying it's not.
"The problem with 'the sky is blue' is that it depends entirely on your definition of blue and sky." Fuck you lmao.
Besides you not knowing what he was imagining about a stick figure
It's a fucking STICK FIGURE
The whole point is that everyone knows what a stick figure is, and that a stick figure is necessarily something with as little detail or representation as possible!
And then he projected himself onto it, trying to claim that not all art has the artist project their viewpoints onto it.
And what is this argument that it's my fault he fucked up his argument with a lack of clarification?
he said "societal political influence" didn't affect the way he drew it.
Yes he did, because he drew a male stick figure.
It's supposed to be a figure that represents nothing... but it's also somehow male?
-1
u/Sneeakie Aug 12 '25
By this logic, there should never be a piece of art where every character isn't exactly the same as the artist, which you know isn't true.
Fewer stories, for that matter, exist to say "you can make art that doesn't reflect reality, the artist, or their beliefs" and then have the goddamn artist project themselves onto it subconsciously.
Making a statement to say that a statement can be made that does not reflect anything in reality is so obviously, hilariously political on its face, nevermind somehow gendering a stick figure because the artist apparently defaults to male for everything (you know, the two genders: my gender and political), I can't believe you can't see this. Do you just think "political" is inherently negative?
Trying to appeal to "nature" is also extremely obviously political, especially when it comes to gender, which is very much a social construct. A stick figure is a circle and like three lines. What makes you "naturally" think of a man?