THIS IS A POLITICS & CULTURE WEBLOG, AFTER ALL

The recent exchange at this site over Brokeback Mountain left me thinking. Although it was a (I think) extremely successful debate insofar as some very interesting ideas were expressed, I don't know that it really added to much - the problem was that the two sides of the debate weren't really arguing about the same point. At the core of this separation was the question of how the cinema should interact with contemporary politics.

So, I've decided to spend some time exploring the relationship between art and politics. I have no idea yet what format this exploration will take, so bear with me if things get a little rocky and/or pedantic here for a little while.

To start off, I have some questions that I think bear asking, some to clarify terms and semantics, some to direct discussion
-What precisely is meant by the words "art" and "politics"?
-Can a work of art be a political act? Is a work of art necessarily a political act? Is satire a political act, or "mere" commentary?
-Is it best to treat a work of art in terms of how it speaks to the society of its creation, in terms of the critic's society, or in terms of some "universal" timelessness?
-If we view polemical art not in terms of its political ramifications (whether through ignorance or chronological/geographical separation), do we do it a disservice, missing its authorial intent; or do we do it a service, transcending it beyond a limited application?

These are inapt questions, but they're a start. I have not interest whatsover in answering them right now - this will be, I fear a weeks- or even months-long endeavor. Meanwhile, anyone who has an immediate thought when they hear "art" and "political" in the same breath is welcome - hell, encouraged - to share that thought in comments.