In a culture of fear one can live but not thrive, and it is a restricted, compromised life controlled by fear, not lived fully or abundantly. Thus, it is a kind of half-life, based on what is allowed and not on what is desired or possible in freedom. The resulting art will naturally be impoverished if not frankly prostituted, stunted or perverted one way or another. Everyone knows this, except perhaps fanatical zealots, but plenty of people are still willing to conform and play the official game, and they do.
As for academic freedom, that's a misplaced if not irrelevant priority. What obviously matters is academic fashion, particularly sociopolitical fashion, especially since that has major bearing on career prospects. All too often, if one's not duly PC, one's academic career ain't going nowhere, or certainly not very far. I give you a quote (in translation) by Spanish rogue historian María Elvira Roca Barea:
"Why would an intellectual seeking career success, like everybody else, adopt an extremely uncomfortable and possibly career-destroying position by becoming a problem, a real and serious problem, for the dominant culture? Insubordination has a price. Let's not confuse matters. This is not about the eternal nonconformist intellectual à la Voltaire who has been and is an ornament of the circles of power by way of being critical. That is salon "revolution" in the style of the limousine left. It's been working beautifully for centuries. It's part of the game. It doesn't touch the truly essential levers of politics and cultural dominance. That is jumping with a net."
Beauty? Like aesthetics? Please. Who cares? The point is the meaning or message and the correctness or orthodoxy thereof. Besides, appreciation of aesthetic quality in art requires a suitable eye, which even people who swear they live for art may not have, and one can always get the supposed meaning or message explained in words (and LOTS of people can handle words better than visual imagery).
In a culture of fear one can live but not thrive, and it is a restricted, compromised life controlled by fear, not lived fully or abundantly. Thus, it is a kind of half-life, based on what is allowed and not on what is desired or possible in freedom. The resulting art will naturally be impoverished if not frankly prostituted, stunted or perverted one way or another. Everyone knows this, except perhaps fanatical zealots, but plenty of people are still willing to conform and play the official game, and they do.
As for academic freedom, that's a misplaced if not irrelevant priority. What obviously matters is academic fashion, particularly sociopolitical fashion, especially since that has major bearing on career prospects. All too often, if one's not duly PC, one's academic career ain't going nowhere, or certainly not very far. I give you a quote (in translation) by Spanish rogue historian María Elvira Roca Barea:
"Why would an intellectual seeking career success, like everybody else, adopt an extremely uncomfortable and possibly career-destroying position by becoming a problem, a real and serious problem, for the dominant culture? Insubordination has a price. Let's not confuse matters. This is not about the eternal nonconformist intellectual à la Voltaire who has been and is an ornament of the circles of power by way of being critical. That is salon "revolution" in the style of the limousine left. It's been working beautifully for centuries. It's part of the game. It doesn't touch the truly essential levers of politics and cultural dominance. That is jumping with a net."
Beauty? Like aesthetics? Please. Who cares? The point is the meaning or message and the correctness or orthodoxy thereof. Besides, appreciation of aesthetic quality in art requires a suitable eye, which even people who swear they live for art may not have, and one can always get the supposed meaning or message explained in words (and LOTS of people can handle words better than visual imagery).