No.3584
This thread is not for dumping art, but feel free to use it to supplement your points.
How do you believe a different political ideology, such as forms of socialism, may affect art nowadays?
For example, George Lucas discusses the artistic limitations of the commerce-driven film making industry of America, describing it as less free than the anti-anti-government limitations of the Soviet film industry: >>>/leftypol/40379
Some art industries, like the US televised animation industry, have moved away from more high-effort styles, settling into the flat digital style we see universally now (contrasted not only with traditional cel and stop-motion styles on the pre-2000s, but also with early 2000s shows with hand-painted backgrounds and more fluid animation) as it approaches the similar generic industrial feel of the music industry.
Is there reason to believe a socialist, communist or anti-capitalist society would avoid most of the quality-of-life pitfalls of the industrialization of art?
On the other hand, I have read accusations that communism such as that of some Soviet eras encouraged arts that emphasized realism, or minimalism and practicality, at the expense of culture and soul (an obvious example may be brutalist architecture, and the iconic geometric style seen in many propaganda posters)
>>
No.3586
>>3584>at the expense of culture and soul (an obvious example may be brutalist architecture, and the iconic geometric style seen in many propaganda posters)brutalism is amazing, fuck off to your glass towers.
>>
No.3587
>>3585I think OP was just presenting that as an accusation by other people.
Is it right to say that socialist art and architecture emphasizes practicality then? Not that that's a bad thing.
>>
No.3588
>>3587This.
Just in time, I was taking a while to find the right images… well might as well post my original response:
>>3585>>3586I didn't properly say what I meant; I'm actually a fan of brutalism done well (and also that iconic propaganda poster style) but I'm talking about the accusations. You know those cherry-picked run-down cookie-cutter economic blocks of apartments that people like to put in anti-leftist propaganda? Typing "soulless" next to "brutalism" gives no shortage of discussion, despite how beautiful the style can be.
>>
No.3589
>>3588I think most people don't give a shit if their house is "ugly and plain" as long as it's sturdy and a decent place to live.
Any other architectural style can be just as "soulless and cultureless" as capitalists claim brutalism is, and hey, some people just like simpler things and styles while, to them, fancier buildings may look disgusting.
(These are some of my thoughts, extremely simplified because I'm sleepy.)
>>
No.3590
>>3588>filename 2Oops, it was in plain sight on the Internet Trash OP.
>>3589I personally agree fully; I'd happily live in an ugly or plain house so long as I can decorate the inside to my taste. I was raised around a lot of people who cared about how
other people's houses looked though, really entitled bourg shit.