This is the second video in my Abominable Ideas in Art series, and based on a group of articles I wrote a few years ago. Here I tackled the ubiquitous and self-righteous notion that all art is political. People assume this is a progressive idea, but because it places art (all art and art history] in a subordinate role to contemporary political movements it is quite the opposite.
And if you missed my prior video, which is the first in the series, here it is:
~ Ends
Art & Crit by Eric Wayne 
Its difficult to say anything worthwhile about art without being authoritative, you do it well!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was starting to get worried there for a minute. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how my poor water lilies could possibly be political. Enter Monet…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, and Monet was in Giverny painting his water lilies while war was raging in the larger world. Some would fault him for not making art about the war, or for making art instead of protesting the war, etc. However, he made paintings that we still enjoy today, internationally, and that contribution has been much broader and longer lasting than probably anything he could have done for humanity relative to the war, or any other political matter. In a way, his painting flowers in his natural sanctuary was itself a counter to war; a refusal to let it take over his life; derail him; and prevent him from doing what he loved. In that sense, continuing to do what really matters to us in the face of obstacles and widescale human catastrophe is a very good thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people