Unanimity: 100 % of voters believe art is political. No contradiction, no hesitation.
The consensus is identical among men, women and voters with no declared gender, and every age bracket represented, from 18-24 to over-65, reaches the same verdict. Neither gender nor generation produces the slightest nuance.
The debate confirms the vote but sharpens its meaning, and that is where it becomes interesting. Nobody argues that artists ought to take a stand: what is asserted is that every work reflects ideas, values and a vision of society, and therefore shapes public debate, whether it means to or not.
The thread's most endorsed contribution is also its most explicit: art defends ideas about society and power, and some artists use it to denounce injustice or support a cause.
One voice, in English, states the same thesis in its widest form: any work can reflect a worldview and weigh on debate. That shifts the question from the artist's intention to the work's effect.
The best-supported contribution cites Picasso's Guernica, Orwell's 1984 and Lennon's Imagine to conclude that art has always been political, even subtly so, and welcomes it: it is a way of defending your values and circulating ideas. In this round the debate does not settle anything; it spells out what the unanimity meant.