Art is intrinsically political. If you think it's not political, that's because it's just taking a political position you either don't see, or one you agree with.
The only way to remove politics from art would be to remove the people.
Is this art? What is the context? I can't tell without knowing the context. Who drew it? How did they draw it? Why did they draw it? What inspired them? Without understanding these aspects, nothing is art, or everything is art, and it loses its meaning.
Yes, art is the projection of skill and beauty, but how we define skill and our perception of beauty also depend on context. You accepting the painting of the Mona Lisa as art tells something about you, while my grandfather rejecting it with the words "my 7-year-old granddaughter can draw better" tells something about him. This is inherently political. A modern art painting with color splashes is, in the most basic sense, not distinct from a 5-year-old playing with paint without context. With context, whether you accept it as art or not is political.
> Politics is the set of activities associated with making decisions in groups or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.
So even if you could argue that art itself is not political, you surely cannot argue that the perception of it isn't.
> you surely cannot argue that the perception of it isn't.
Your perception of it is, most people don't see art as political. Nobody would find a painting of a sea with a rock to be political, except really annoying people.
> To repeat what a previous commenter said, nothing is political as long as they fit your political view.
I don't share the politics of Van Gogh, yet I don't feel "The Rocks" is political.
So in general there are plenty of stuff that you wont find political even if you don't share the views, that is what people mean when they say an art piece isn't political. A person who says such an art piece is political is just trying to find politics in art where there isn't one.
Even if the original artist says it is political it isn't, because there is no politics in the art the politics was in his statement that it is political. Art stands on their own free from the opinions of their creators. You can of course embed political messages into art pieces making them political, but this isn't such a case. If you can't deduce what politics the person is trying to convey just from the art piece alone then it isn't political.
> I don't share Van Gogh's politics, yet I don't feel "The Rocks" is political.
Don't you see the contradiction?
I know people often complain that everything has become political. I understand because I do it too. The main problem in this discussion is the loss of nuance in the different usages and meanings of the word "political." In everyday usage, it refers to views being part of the policy-making process, especially when more pressing matters exist. What we really mean and criticize is divisive politics.
However, in the extended view of politics, which is a very common view, designating something as art involves politics. It's a political process. This doesn't degrade art or make it inherently divisive. It certainly doesn't make art a subset of politics.
