I just recently discovered that the word “partisan” is actually a derogatory slur and a misnomer. I don’t want to be partisan, but it is still a term that we use to describe those who are, in some way, politically active in some way.
It’s no secret that partisan arts are something of a thing. And though I think that they have a long and interesting history in our society, I do think it’s a good thing that they are coming to the forefront now. And I see partisans of all stripes coming together to create new arts, from the arts of the avant garde to the avant-pop. I think it’s the best of both worlds.
I personally think partisan arts are one of the best artforms to come out since the 60’s. It brings together the best of art forms (the works of art that have a political purpose), and then combines these works with new, interesting and experimental forms of art. The term partisan arts is best summed up by this line from James Thurber’s “What’s the Matter With Oklahoma?” It’s something like, ‘I vote for you because I vote for you because I don’t care.
Yeah, I thought so too. What I mean is that partisan arts are works of art created by a group of people who are all interested in the same political cause. This causes the works to be made by a group who have an affinity for the same political cause. It’s also the case when artists are given political goals and are allowed to create works of art that they are simply proud of.
The idea of partisan arts is to have an artistic medium that reflects the people and beliefs of a particular society. And it does this through the use of political symbols. This is why we can see works of art that reflect the politics of our day, like the portraits of Martin Luther King, Jr. or the work of the French artist Jean-Michel Basquiat.
So when we see portraits of presidents, we should be able to see the political affiliation of the artist as well. The fact that Martin Luther King Jr. is depicted as a Republican and Basquiat is depicted as an anarchist is an example of partisan art. Both of these artists were political activists and this is why their work is considered partisan.
I can’t think of another way to describe partisan art.
In politics, partisan art is a technique that involves the artist making a political statement to the public, generally the purpose of which is to help the artist make more money and thus support his political agenda. The goal of partisan art is to achieve one of the two outcomes mentioned above: either create a good product or promote a political agenda. In the case of Basquiat, his political agenda was to create a political artwork so that the artist could sell more paintings.
To me it is important to remember that the way partisan art is produced changes depending on the political system. In the United States, artists are free to make political statements for the purpose of making more money. This is the case for artists like Basquiat, or the fact that artists can make political statements for the sake of getting a job or some other gain. In other countries like France or Italy, artists might be more or less allowed to make political statements for their personal agendas.
The differences in the way partisan arts are produced means that the art that you see from these countries will be more or less partisan. The art of these countries is more likely to be political in that the artist is making an art statement for their own personal gain, even if it’s not necessarily a statement that has anything to do with politics.
