I'm not really sure you didn't really read my comment or if this an unsuccessful attempt on appeal to absurdity.

Anyway, funnily, the 1888 piece, "The Rocks", from Van Gogh was very political to show his impressionist alignment :)

To repeat what a previous commenter said, nothing is political as long as they fit your political view.

> 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.