1. The writer was "deeply offended" by the artists who made the art. He felt that the artists have never served and do not know the true sacrifices of a veteran. He felt that the artist used great American military leaders and depicted them as unpatriotic in their art. Someone who has served and is a veteran sees things in a different way than those of us who have not served.
2. The author is coming from his direct experiences in defending his country. In him being a veteran he does have credibility and makes his claims very sound. I have not served in the military so if I were to look at the same piece of art I may see things in a different light. There are always different ways of looking at an argument I have always live by someones perception it there own reality.
3. I believe that the relationship between art and politics are not always a good mix. But has been used for a long time to get points across to people. It is used in elections and even in the daily newspaper about something that is going on in the countries politics. I believe that the artists look at their own perception when working on their pieces and get their own point across. Each person will interpret it differently and someone will always be offended in some way by the art.
You had stated that both art and politics are not a good mix. I have some sense to agree but with what form of expression is there it can be beneficial for both parties or something entertaining as a bystander.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the two don't mix well together, they are completely separate state of minds
ReplyDeleteThe artist could have had an entirely different meaning for their pieces, we'll never know until we are able to add the artist's opinion
ReplyDelete