• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Politcs Art?

Is Politics an Art Form?

  • Yes (explain)

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • No (explain)

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Total voters
    17

Cilogy

Pathetic Douchebag
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
374
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Would you consider politics an art form, whether the "artist" is a politician or a regular citizen or anything in between?

Please, for the safety of everyone:
1. Stay on topic
2. Do not attack the person, attack the issue


So here's what I think:

Anything that contains a 'human connection' is art. Many consider the word "art" to be a compliment, when it is actually a word that describes something that has that human connection. The importance is the distinction between good art and bad art. A chair is art, a child is art, hell even sex is art. Dare I say it, murder is art, but considered bad art because of the human connection. A tree is not art, because it has no human connection, however, the process of planting a tree can be considered performance art.

With that said, politics is an art form. It is criticized, it is glorified, it is created, in some ways it can be destroyed, but most importantly it is thought about. Of course, it is not art until the idea becomes a physical object or an action. If it is just a thought it cannot be art, not yet.

Ok so I'm done preaching, what do you think?
 
It doesn't take talent to be a lying, cheating, stealing dirtbag, which is essentially what most politicians are. It takes talent to be a painter, musician, etc...
 
It doesn't take talent to be a lying, cheating, stealing dirtbag, which is essentially what most politicians are. It takes talent to be a painter, musician, etc...

But it is man made right?

Ok so let's break it down, you say that "it doesn't take talent to be a lying, cheating, stealing dirtbag, which is essentially what most politicians are." And I partly agree with you on that, but what they are doing is still art. In order to understand this better, continue reading:

Take Chris Burden for example. This guy once nailed himself to the top of a Volkswagen Beetle in 1974 and called it art. Ok so some people call that good art, I call it bad art but it is art nonetheless. Burden's point in doing this kind of thing is to make you think. Even if you thought it was disturbing and wrong (which I do) it still made you think, and through that, Burden has already achieved his goal.

Now back to politics, I can't think of an example that we will all agree on, so I will make one up. Let's say some Senator proposes a bill that would cause a lot of harm to the U.S. In my opinion, there will always be supporters for a certain bill, so let's say those supporters considered it good art. You and I would probably hate it and reject it immediately; it is art, however it is bad art to you and me, because it is created by a human and is not a creation of nature (of course, we could all argue for days about where things from nature come from, but that's a different topic). Despite the negativity, the bill proposed by the senator made us think about it and analyze it, even thought we might have thought "My god what the bloody hell is this thing that you call 'legislature?'"

Therefore, for the sake of politics, the senator has not achieved his goal, but for the sake of art, he has, even if he did not consider it art.

By the way, sorry for the double-posting earlier. :)
 
I think being a statesmen is an artform. Men and women who serve the public good, out of genuine interest and care for the people they serve. To create legislation that (hopefully) makes the lives of people better, is a grand art. There are not many of these politicians left, but there are a few.
 
Being a politician is definitely an art form. Unfortunately, it's usually being applied to the political landscape by BS artists.
 
Being reffered to as an Artist IMO is the most overated compliment there is.Art is a dictatorship it has to be once conflicted through commitee it has no vision.

people are impressed but its all emotion not logical.I dont think politics is an art and should be insulted by the suggestion.
 
Well I consider Charisma, Leadership, and Persuasion, a skill and art.
 
In so far as being in comparison between a science and art, it is more art than science, but still has a sizable amount of science behind it.
 
If you consider lying and manipulation a art then yes politics is a art.
 
It's arts lowest form. Attempting to change the behavior and attitudes of people through various dishonest measures is 'artsy' enough...Throw on top of that the added difficulty of having to do all of that while giving off the appearance that you aren't dishonest and you've got yourself an art that's very difficult to perform.

-NC
 
Anything that contains a 'human connection' is art.
What do you mean by "art"? That can be a very ambiguous word. Politicians are not "artists". Doctors are not artists, neither are plumbers. They all have human connection. Every single career has "human connection" of some sort. So I really don't understand what you are talking about. Maybe you could explain?

Art can mean craft or trade or skill, but it can also mean a work of beauty.

Every single human would be an artist no matter what they do according to your definition.
 
Last edited:
Would you consider politics an art form, whether the "artist" is a politician or a regular citizen or anything in between?

Please, for the safety of everyone:
1. Stay on topic
2. Do not attack the person, attack the issue


So here's what I think:

Anything that contains a 'human connection' is art. Many consider the word "art" to be a compliment, when it is actually a word that describes something that has that human connection. The importance is the distinction between good art and bad art. A chair is art, a child is art, hell even sex is art. Dare I say it, murder is art, but considered bad art because of the human connection. A tree is not art, because it has no human connection, however, the process of planting a tree can be considered performance art.

With that said, politics is an art form. It is criticized, it is glorified, it is created, in some ways it can be destroyed, but most importantly it is thought about. Of course, it is not art until the idea becomes a physical object or an action. If it is just a thought it cannot be art, not yet.

Ok so I'm done preaching, what do you think?

Politics is NOT art. Artificial, maybe, but not art.

Politics is left-brain, art is right-brain.

I find your analogy for art particularly muddled.

Human connection is not art, human connection is human connection - exactly as the words imply.

I have no idea why you would want to blur politics with art. To my mind, they are entirely separate "vocations". Politics does not follow the particular spirit, nor the particular aesthetics for what constitutes "art".

If you want to call "anything" art, fine, go ahead, but for me, I'll separate my politics from art every time.

Also, you say a tree is not art. And yet the tree is so often the subject material for artists. The splendid tree has graced many a canvas. The tree is obviously "inspiration" for artists... and "inspiration" and art go hand in hand.

A tree is far far closer to art than politics...
 
Yes politics is an art form. It takes more than just lying or cheating or what have you. You have to beable to read people, understand how people think and will react towards subjects. You have to know how to manipulate people to get the desired outcome. You have to know when to say something and when to keep your yap shut.

Sure it sounds easy to say. Not quite as easy to do. Especially if you're having to deal with a mass of people and not just one or two.
 
I think this concept would fit in this thread:

Social sculpture is a specific example of the extended concept of art that was advocated by Joseph Beuys. Beuys used this term to illustrate his idea of art's potential to transform society. It is expressly opposed to art that is rooted in formal- and aesthetic considerations but includes human activity, in particular activity that strives to structure and shape society. This definition of art is no longer confined to a material product or artifact.

The central idea of a social sculpture is a person, who creates structures in society using language and thought.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sculpture]Social sculpture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
You have to know when to say something and when to keep your yap shut.
That isn't a guideline limited to politics. Its just common sense to follow that rule.
 
Politics is NOT art. Artificial, maybe, but not art.

Politics is left-brain, art is right-brain.

I find your analogy for art particularly muddled.

Human connection is not art, human connection is human connection - exactly as the words imply.

I didn't say human connection is art, I said things are art if they have the human connection. Not the the other way around, you have deliberately confused the issues for some reason.


I have no idea why you would want to blur politics with art.

:rofl Um, for discussion, enlightenment, debate, etc. Its a freakin' debate forum.


To my mind, they are entirely separate "vocations". Politics does not follow the particular spirit, nor the particular aesthetics for what constitutes "art".

People give that same argument about different types of art. It seems like you are only considering art in a very narrow field.


Also, you say a tree is not art. And yet the tree is so often the subject material for artists. The splendid tree has graced many a canvas. The tree is obviously "inspiration" for artists... and "inspiration" and art go hand in hand.

What the hell is this? I said that an actual tree is not art, I didn't say that a painting or sculpture or what have you of a tree is not art. The tree itself has no human connection, therefore it cannot be art. A depicted tree is obviously art, don't play dumb.

A tree is far far closer to art than politics...

That is some bull**** right there.

A tree is not man-made. I mean, of course a man may plant a seed, but the rest is up to nature. Art and politics have human involvement, a tree does not (other than planting). Art and politics are drawn from inspiration, a tree does not. Art and politics come from the creativity of man, a tree does not.

Do you even know what a tree is? What your arguing is like saying "a pizza is a far far closer to a pencil than a ink pen.

But if you make such an extreme assertion about a tree being closely related to art, then according to your rules, basically everything is art or nothing is art.

It seems like all these people who are saying the two are completely unrelated are saying that because they refuse to look at politics as a good thing. Basically, they've just become so frustrated with politics that they think it cannot be considered as a creative product.

Heck, what we're doing right now is art.
 
Back
Top Bottom