Agreed. But consider art today. In order to get attention, artists are not judged on technique or emotional content but on a banal and unchanging standard of edginess. And the history of art is rewritten so as to accomodate artists' politics.
On this thread we've been using art in its most general sense
Not me. Aesthetics and art are not to be confused.
If you're uncomfortable with that just substitute Ali for Lindberg.
Nope. Boxing has objective standards -- wins, losses, championships. Art is wholly subjective. By definition.
> On the contrary, I'm arguing that it does, it has and it has influenced our perceptions of what is great art
Here it's important to ask whether your talking about the influence of politics on the artist or on the public.
In particular, my critism is of art critics and of public perception.
Very broadly, one can't argue with what you're saying since life is unitary.
Oh, there are many reasons why one cannot argue with what I'm saying. Many many reasons.
My take on Mark Steyn ...
I never deign to predict Steyn's point of view. Even if I could divine it, I could never express it properly.
but finding such people on Free Republic would be quite hard to do.
I also never slam or generalize the forum. It is a weak substitute for genuine argumentation.