A painting (or work of art) might also have a political content based on the way it presents material, on the way it plays against accepted norms or rhetorical modes.
Horace wrote an ode praising Caesar's conquest of Cleopatra that is highly ironic and condemnatory. (Sorry I forget which one. But it compares catching Cleopatra with catching a rabbit, and refers to the celebration as a drunken rout. Michael S?)
A good deal of mannerist art questions the "rationality" of classical renaissance presentations and the censorship implied in single perspective.
And some of this, of course, is an aspect of Warhol's political commentary.
And, as Carrol pointed out, whether Austen comes across as romantic escape fantasy or a sober look at the undergarments of nineteenth century bourgeois rationalization has a lot to do with how you read her. A Cinderalla heroine named "Fanny Price"? Think about it.
There's a reason Plato considered artists dangerous. But you have to look to see.
Joanna
----- Original Message ----- At 06:31 AM 11/24/2011, Wojtek S wrote:
>[WS:] When I go to an art show or an art gallery I do so for
>aesthetic reasons. I get my political education elsewhere,
So you skip Goya's Caprichos or 1814 Execution of Spanish under Napoleon, Velazquez's Surrender of Breda (plus most of his portraits), Guernica.... and on and on.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk