A standard line, promoted by people like Clement Greenberg, is that politics contaminates art, and Manet is often cited as an example of art for art's sake.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Rationalism is the enemy of art, though necessary as a basis for architecture.
Every artistic expression is either influenced by or adds something to politics.
All art is political in the sense that it serves someone's politics.
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.
Making art in America is sort of a political statement in and of itself. It's not the best environment for that sometimes.
Art gives people a reason to be alive.
Art has nothing to do with politics. It is the freest thing in the world.
Any work that aspires, however humbly, to the condition of art should carry its justification in every line.
I think there is a debate in the arts about, you know, whether we must strive for art for art's sake, and you know, kind of try to keep political debate out of our work. And to that I say, I'd like you to show me an example of, you know, this so-called apolitical art. I don't think there's any such thing.
Any form of art is political if you make it that way.