We are increasingly no longer lovers of film or literature or painting or music, but judges, who look at cultural creations from an exclusively ethical or political point of view. Literature is no longer creation or the portrayal or decoding of an era; it is an expression of the domination of the powerful or of the rebellion of minorities. One no longer creates, one testifies—and so much the worse for talent, for imagination.

Should we introduce ethnic or gender quotas into art, at the risk of denaturing it? After all, if a work of art is required only to be representative of a fraction of the population, then it is no longer a creation but an election by proportional representation. Every film, book, or opera would then automatically include a fixed percentage of minorities. We thereby confuse good intentions and talent. But talent has nothing to do with justice. To recover a certain equilibrium in the creative world entails the creation of true works of art. A bad film produced by the staunchest feminist is still a bad film. …

Just what characterizes an artistic creation, a painting, a symphony, or a novel? These are inventions: they probe into the unknown of symbols, colors, or sounds. They celebrate the beauty of the world; they question, overturn, console, or blast open. On the other hand, a political doctrine or religious or moral dogma is by nature fixed and tends to assume control over whatever challenges its preeminence. Ideology forbids as much as it obligates. Sectarian thinkers love neither artistic peaks nor originality, only the drabness of the docile herd.

[Depends on what one considers art, too. Art itself has been so debased in the “modern art” era that it really has no value except for power signaling anyway. Literature is being created for the didactic rather than the transcendent, and performance-based art is even worse. Even comedy has become ‘clapter,’ a very telling sign as to what animates and orients ‘art’ in general these days. — Ed]