What was the freedom of art?

Thoughts about form, composition and originality seem to be put to an end. Now it's about identity, origin, skin color and gender. Which gives art life and creates reflection. Personally, I think that aesthetics and ethics can be united.

 

But not long ago the arts should be free. Free from shame and fear. And society? Here you were proud to see the freedom of art reflecting one's own.Now there are still more signs that the retreat has begun. What was before was autonomous now has to be called. What was previously seen as radical should now be cropped. There is much talk about decency and that certain disturbing works should be piled down and put on the magazine. Several works are threatened with fire and fire.

 

If the artistic ambiguities take place in this new scary artistic world? Maybe no longer. Everything that can be interpreted as divergent, disrespectful, malicious, yes, just critical, is perceived as intolerable violation ... instead, triumphing simplicity. 

 

Is this the end of the art?

If you are black female gay Muslim you must not make white masculine hot Christian art. An art that, in principle, will no longer be art, but learning, ends in such cases quickly in shyness. When art is no longer free and is no longer valuable in itself, it must be approved by the artist's biography. And if this artist does not lead a sincere and authentic life, the value of his / her art falls inevitably.That a female handicapped artist of immigrant background wishes to be appreciated - not for her femininity, her immigrant background, her disability - but for her art seems almost unthinkable nowadays. 

 

But is not it making art to be able to understand? 

To understand the lives of others, joy, pain and sorrow? Being respectful or considerate is thoughtful and may well turn the way to critical wonder.We should again decide to fight for an art that may be what it should be: really common, strange, false or true? Just not really correct.