There arose a belief in style - and in banality. Banality encompassed politics, too, because it was a common belief that politics were not worthy of art.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Art is about play and about transcendent meanings, not reducible to politics.
A lot of politics in art is just institutional critique, which, in my opinion, is not all that political.
Basically, I viewed any work of art as an imposition of another person's taste, and saw the individual making this imposition as a kind of dictator.
The idea that popular arts were shallow by definition and the traditional arts were profound was dead, I thought, and I wanted to prove it.
Art removes boundaries and makes the world brighter. It is the common language for people all over the world. But politics are the opposite completely. Politicians, their very meaning is based on the lines they draw.
All art is political in the sense that it serves someone's politics.
So begins a question which has of late become more and more urgent: what is the relation of aesthetics to politics?
Any form of art is political if you make it that way.
Every artistic expression is either influenced by or adds something to politics.
I don't understand how any good art could fail to be political.