In this article I enquire into the notion of ‘political art’, by drawing on ideas from R. G. Collingwood’s often neglected Principles of Art. I show that his characterisation of ‘expression’ reveals what I call the ‘Narrow Aretaic Structure’ (NAS), distinguishable from a ‘Wide Aretaic Structure’ (WAS). Whatever satisfies NAS satisfies WAS, but not vice-versa. Though we have reasons to call ‘art’ anything satisfying WAS, Collingwoodian ‘art proper’ must also satisfy NAS. I then suggest that the distinction between WAS and (...) NAS is more interesting than the distinction between art and non-art and even as a criterion for ‘aesthetic’ (though this is not my main issue). The main issue is articulating a view of when the ‘politicalness’ of ‘political art’ is relevant in light of its being art, or, in Collingwoodian terms, ‘expression’ (under the NAS model). Collingwood allows us to give an alternative answer to these questions; one that does not appeal to ‘messages’ in art and their hypothesised effects on the audience. In other words, an answer that avoids the consequentialist ‘template’, which is restricted to the WAS model. As case studies, I use some of Aleksander Deineka’s ‘Socialist-Realist’ mosaics, as well as other examples of political artworks, and the recording of a work song. (shrink)