> And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden? There is an artist's intent, and then there is interpretation of the work. You can't prevent som

> And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden? There is an artist's intent, and then there is interpretation of the work. You can't prevent someone from applying a political lens for interpretation -- oh, look, those people are out of place, etc. Sometimes this can shed light on the work, other times obscures it. Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony was explicitly political and changed the dedication as political events unfolded. Later, Beethoven wrote the "Harp" quartet in a cellar in Vienna while it was being bombarded by Napoleon's army. The quartet is the last thing you'd imagine it to be under the circumstances of its composition, and maybe that was the point, in which case you can say there is perhaps an inverted political intent at play here, too. The political context adds a dimension to how I think of that quartet. (I can't resist mentioning Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" -- not highly regarded and very corny and probably more on the order of what you expect from "political" art). Now give me a political interpretation of Beethoven's C# minor quartet. I'd maybe have to take Taruskin's approach of considering it the work of not a single individual, but what was required from the whole society for such a work to have been produced. Everything from fiddle makers to music instruction to how arts were funded. At that point, I don't think the mode of analysis any longer has anything to do with the C# minor quartet. I strongly endorse the idea of autonomous expression in art; when there is reason to believe the artist's intent was political, I'll follow along; when not, a political interpretation is useful only insofar as it sheds light on the work.