Art for art's sake?

[Gilrandir]

After Crimea annexation and ensuing Russian invasion into Donbas official Ukraine imposed sanctions on Russia. The sanctions included a ban for Russian citizens to enter Ukraine if they 1) crossed into Crimea bypassing checkpoints on the former administrative border between mainland Ukraine and Crimea (which is effectively an international border now), 2) openly supported/recognized the said annexation or 3) took part in war against Ukraine. The ban concerns Russian singers, actors, film directors and other "figures of culture" as well who mostly tick the first two boxes (although some tick the third as well - see the linked article).

In addition to the ban to enter Ukraine physically, they are banned to enter Ukraine virtually, e.i. films with the said actors' participation or shot by the directors on the ban list are prohibited to show in Ukraine.

Was this step natural/neccessary or should one treat art as art only, disregarding political stance of the artists?

The article connected with the topic: https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/day-after-day/award-killer-0

[Fragony]

The black square is a good example of art for the sake of it. It worth millions. People Just do not get redicule, it is just a black square

[rory_20_uk]

If you're looking for art that is in no way associated with any sort of "bad" things I doubt there's much left throughout history - after all, most is created under the regime of the winners and if this were not enough work that includes the loosers is redacted.

I'd rather not live in a 1984-esque world where everything is redacted if it offends modern concepts of morality as it would be an exceedingly boring place.

~:smoking: