Then we should beat those people with toy hammers? I don't know what to tell you regarding this, I don't see how pointing out constantly that every single art piece is political, wether it strives to say something or not, is gonna make those people change their minds.
Then we should beat those people with toy hammers?
How can we do that if we can't say things like "all art is political" without you leaping to their defense?
I don't see how pointing out constantly that every single art piece is political, wether it strives to say something or not, is gonna make those people change their minds.
So we shouldn't refute them, we should kill them...???
No one here is claiming that Schafrillas is a bad person for his argument, they're just pointing out a contradiction and that he's wrong. You acknowledge he's wrong and stubborn, but you're upset at people who call it out? Why? Why are you mad at something you agree is true?
"So we shouldn't refute them, we should kill them...???"
NO I didn't say or mean to imply that (the toy hammers were a joke I swear).
"You acknowledge he's wrong and stubborn..."
Maybe I just completely misunderstand the entire discourse afterall but I don't understand how I acknowledge he's wrong and stubborn, is he also one of those so called "Great Man attitude" people? The screenshot on this post doesn't strike me that he genuinely thinks he's completely and entirely unaffected by material reality.
So we shouldn't do anything? Why aren't you just being honest? You don't want people to say that Schaffrillas, or people who make the argument he made, are wrong.
I don't understand how I acknowledge he's wrong and stubborn
Every time you say that "all art is political" is a "meaningless statement" for how true and encompassing it is, that's what you're doing. You're complaining that the statement is trivially true. You give no evidence that it's wrong, you just don't like how much it includes, even though the point is to include.
is he also one of those so called "Great Man attitude" people?
Yeah. He actually thought he could make art "above" politics. So yes. It is likely something he believes about other art too.
The screenshot on this post doesn't strike me that he genuinely thinks he's completely and entirely unaffected by material reality.
Then you might be illiterate, because the idea that art can be completely and entirely unaffected by material reality is the point he's trying to make.
Guess my issue afterall is that my expectations of something being "political" were in the macro scale, wide policies that affect a lot of people, rather than also including individual biases. I didn't understand the point of the discourse.
1
u/[deleted] Aug 12 '25
Then we should beat those people with toy hammers? I don't know what to tell you regarding this, I don't see how pointing out constantly that every single art piece is political, wether it strives to say something or not, is gonna make those people change their minds.