• crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I never knew why people need to conflate the personality or political opinions of the artist with the art they make.

    In my opinion, even if the artist is a terrible human being they can still produce some good art. And even if the art they produce is crap, it can still prove valuable, as it can be parodied, modified, transformed or mocked.

    • DreamButt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you ignoring the fact that the artist in question specifically makes anti-left propoganda? Like it’s literally their entire identity to try (and fail) to make fun of leftist politics

      • crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I am. Depending on whom you base your ideas on what art is you can defend the case that art has two main components - its conceptual (the political or other ideas of the artist) and its perceptual part (the craftsmanship).

        In this case the conceptual part of the work is completely removed, leaving only the craftsmanship. I see no problem in sharing this, and I see no possible slippery slope here.

        In short, just because someone is a fascist does not mean they can’t be a good craftsman, and should not be seen and analyzed. Take for example Adolf Dassler’s Adidas.

        Quite frankly, I would also love to see what the original cartoon looks like. Not because I would agree with it, but because I want to know how extreme rightwingers represent me (or us, I guess). I want to know how their propaganda looks like. And I personally believe we should all know and care about it, if we want to combat it successfully.

        • DreamButt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you deliberately trying to be incoherent?

          You said:

          I never knew why people need to conflate the personality or political opinions of the artist with the art they make

          And I asked you if you are ignoring the fact that the arts intended purpose is political.

          Now u r on some shit about the aesthetic qualities which has nothing to do with your original argument.

          It’s not “conflation” when the thing is itself literally what people take it as.

          Also! Op was just asking a question dude. They weren’t condemning the meme. Ya gotta chill

    • Mem@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suggest looking through his twitter feed (not saying you didn’t) and paying close attention to the depiction of (not/) favoured men/ women. Twitter links warning In this cartoon (twitter) you can see the unnecessary sexualisation, while this one shows the exact opposite (cuz political enemy and black, idk). Also: Usual depiction of Joe Biden, heavy incel vibes and a masterpiece in bigotry. Make of that what you will, but I think stripping all his influence out of his cartoons would be more work than actually drawing new ones.___