Stalin demands they write a "working class" folk song.

They then sit around the piano to collectively create a state-sanctioned piece - a dictator and two of the greatest composers of the 20^th century engineering a "folk cantata" created by consensus, a horse designed by a committee, a committee composed (excuse pun) of one of the great monsters of the 20th century with musical accompaniment by the two great composers, a spectacle as ludicrous as it is pathetic.

Pownall's play is an imagined encounter. No evidence exists that this incident occurred. But whether it occurred or not is irrelevant.

We can all accept that this kind of "state-sanctioned-creativity" was a hallmark of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany and indeed demonstrating no ideological divide, of McCarthyist America.

Lake Mac City Council shares nothing in common with Soviet Russia, but we too have had our own run-in between art and politicians with the recent call to replace public artwork created as part of stage 2 of the Glendale Interchange work.

The artwork on the back of fences, created and installed in accordance with council's Urban and Public Art Policy (UPAP), has caused a number of councillors to try to have this artwork replaced because they didn't like it (at a cost of $260,000) and they claimed that the "community" didn't like it.

The UPAP (available on website) sets out a series of principles which underpin public art in Lake Mac. They include:

Of particular note is that the principles state that inclusion or exclusion should not be on the basis of "pressure ... brought to bear by groups or individuals".

The questioned artwork followed this process, a process adopted at a council meeting in 2017 which included councillors now objecting to certain artwork.

When objections to the artwork were first raised, council determined that the appropriate councillor portfolio committee should advise how council should proceed.

The portfolio committee, made up of elected councillors and relevant staff, determined unanimously that proper council processes had been followed and recommended, again unanimously, to council that no action be taken i.e. the artwork remain in place.

This recommendation was adopted by the full council.

When a councillor is elected, they receive training on the parameters within which they operate as councillors.

First and foremost of these is the difference between policy and operational matters.

Councillors cannot interfere in operational matters.

For this artwork, the processes of the Urban and Public Art Policy were followed, and the artist selection and the design and installation of the artwork therefore became "operational".

As such, councillors not interfering became the underlying principle informing councillor involvement, a principle that should be rigorously adhered to.

Paul Keating commenting on federal/state relations once quipped: "Never get between a Premier and a bucket of money".

So it is with politicians and the critiquing of art: never get between a politician and the opportunity to grandstand on the issue of "bad art".

Politicians are in their element when going to the opening of an exhibition at an art gallery.

But like most of us in the community, they don't have any special expertise when it comes to deciding on what is good or bad art.

The practice of politicians critiquing art is like oil and water: they should be kept apart as they don't belong together.