Originally Posted by Stoo
Nonsense, Toht. What is political about painting a landscape or composing a melody, etc.?
Good question. Despite a lack of a fine arts degree, I'll attempt to answer.
With a landscape painting: what kind of style did the artist employ? Different styles of art have been popular with different political movements over the years, and different styles portray the political climate in which art is created.
Think of German expressionism, coming as it did after the defeat of Germany in the Great War. Stark, bold, with the ever-present threat of darkness and death hanging over it.
Then there's impressionism, which came about during a period of political instability in France, and can be seen as a rejection of the French Academy of Fine Arts, the conservative school that had dominated art training for roughly 200 years.
Also, what kind of landscape is being depicted? Does it show signs of human habitation? If it shows farmland, it could be the product of an agrarian society. Are there buildings in the distance? It could be a product of industrialisation, however subtle. And if the landscape is a deliberate return to nature, eschewing the kind of signs of habitation we're familiar with in the present day, then that in itself is a statement.
At a very bare bones level, any art produced in an industrialised, capitalist society will reflect just that.
The same could be said for music.