> There's more to life than the political, so why should there be only political art? function_seven's observation that "To write "everything is political" is

> There's more to life than the political, so why should there be only political art? function_seven's observation that "To write "everything is political" is to water down the term "political" so much that it loses meaning." is the most insightful, but does not answer the question. But the answer is simple. Those who write "art should be political", do so because they think art will advance their brand of politics. Anything that advances politics counter to theirs is, of course, not art, but propaganda.