Does Art Have to Be Political?

[Menaka]

Throughout history, art has been a powerful political tool, but should it always have a message? Can art just exist for beauty, or does it inevitably reflect ideology? What role do you think art plays in shaping public opinion?

 

[Nomad]

There is a debate about whether art should be for art sake or art should be for the sake of people. I choose the second option. Therefore, I believe art should be political

 

[Jason]

Well, some consider music an art, and while I love music, sometimes it's refreshing to hear stuff that's not political. That's why John Lennon's stuff can get old, and Paul McCartney's solo stuff is breath of fresh air. Ironically, Lennon mocked McCartney for simple songs, but people get sick of politics.

 

[Henrywrites]

Throughout history, art has been a powerful political tool, but should it always have a message? Can art just exist for beauty, or does it inevitably reflect ideology? What role do you think art plays in shaping public opinion?

Art can play a lot of roles, but one thing that should always be clear is the fact that art can be used for political purposes and there is little that we are going to do to change that.

 

[Jason]

The lyrics to the song are basically an answer to Lennon's mockery of McCartney.

 

[Deep]

Art can be purely aesthetic, but it often reflects ideology, influencing public opinion and sparking thought.

 

[Henrywrites]

Art can be purely aesthetic, but it often reflects ideology, influencing public opinion and sparking thought.

Politicians and those who have an interest in it will always find a way to link politics to art. There are no two ways about it at this point in time.

 

[Jason]

Art that is just about politics just seems like propaganda. For instance, the Soviet Union favored Socialist Realism as an art form.