I don't get it , can you post a little more about this argument?
Or maybe I just need more coffee.
The gist of the argument is that art is always subservient to political power. I'm curious what people here think.
Subservient in what sense though?
I mean , being a good painter won't run a country (although , methinks several artists would do a better job than the eejits we currently have
) such as being a politician won't make you a good commentator on artistic notions.
Or do you mean the argument , that a political argument about a certain issue is superior to an artistic commentary on the same issue?
fuck it , have some Royco.