@artemirl@niu.moe
Social commentary is going to mostlikely contain ideological biases of the creator, but I have no clue how for example paintings of nature could be affected by the artist's ideology.
@setunai

@matrix @setunai @artemirl have you read on Berger's analysis of classical painting? Paintings of nature and paintings of the nude woman are two themes he takes up and relates to their historical situation, for example, nature as a vast and beautiful resource (the ideology of the nature/human dichotomy) and the female nude a sign of purity - to be solely an object of desire. You a always need to go further; *why* was the painting made? Why did the artist find it beautiful? Artists are not morons, they don't merely paint what's pleasing on the surface, they want to convey emotion. That's what aesthetics is all about researching.

@qtd3n
@matrix @artemirl
alternative hypothesis: most of the creators and audience for paintings and sculptures and everything else are horny men, and the subjects are often naked women because that's what horny men like

@setunai @artemirl @matrix That's pretty much the point I was making, it's not an alternative hypothesis. By the painting being an image of a nude woman and a creation of horny men, the painter's idea of beauty is realized, and this standard of beauty is surprisingly consistent in Western art, in which a woman has no agency of her own and she exists to be taken and conquered, she is an object of desire that does no desiring. Just as horniness is socially constructed (what appealed to men then isn't necessarily what appeals to men in all times and cultures) so is the ideology behind the painting, and the ideologies it supports.