>>3534332don't try to pass your subjective reasoning as a truth. if you consider political work is not art then define art first. and what is the criteria for anything to be art?
historically since the mid 20th century the photography have been very political. the political ideologies, philosophies, faiths etc. are part of human beings. and artists try to act accordingly to express themselves.
Henri Cartier-Bresson's was also a leftist. and his work was very political. he was everywhere. but despite being a leftist he also criticized ussr's bad policies. would you also consider his work not art?
lets take Boris Mikhailov's Case History project which is a radical critique of capitalism through capitalism after the fall of soviet union. it is the peak of political art. because of this project alone he won the hasselblad award.
>Daido's farwell to photography is not political. Its art. Its an extension/expression of himself and his struggles and a question of what photography is.i was just telling you that he applied deconstructionism which is a post-modern to photography. it is political in a way that it is a fuck you to conformity and obvious in photography. my point was that his work isn't conservative in anyway. just like you answered op's question with "Japanese GOATs".
and as he mentioned it in that interview that provoke was seen as very radical, political and rebellious. why would they work and share their space with radical anarchists if they didn't had far-leftist leanings at that time?
