Exactly.
It doesn't matter what Japanese people think anyways, considering the people that actually feel the consequences of cssting decisions like this are Asian-Americans.
Doesn't this distance exist in both directions? Why are Asian-Americans, born and raised in America, setting the rules for imported Japanese (pop) cultural artifacts they are not directly related with (and, in this case, take priority over
individuals actually directly related)? Movie casting opportunities are one thing, as they may relate to a trend of reduced job opportunities and visibility of Asian-American actors (not necessarily Japanese-American) within American pop culture, but when there's controversy over white people wearing kimonos/yukata or similar, something that's said to be generally seen as neutral to positive in Japan, I am at a loss on what authority they can criticize the export (appropriation) of that culture's elements.
The whole matter of art and politics is obscured by the fact the word "politics" can mean several things at once (moreover, people treat "politics" as if it's the fundamental force of the universe that supersedes all interpretation of stimuli, when it's really an abstract built on top of a several layers of increasingly more fundamental aspects of human existence: philosophy, psychology, etc).
His statement about politics doesn't necessarily mean that art must be without political interpretation or motive (an audience merely needs to interpret it that way), but rather it could mean the very process of administrating politics shouldn't get in the way of expressing/creating something, or perhaps the process of having your politics dominate through competing within channels of propaganda (which all art qualifies as) may be seen a lesser affair compared to the act of creating art or appreciating its aesthetic value (which all art has).
