I have another paradox to throw at you--after reading this article, on the one hand I thought that censored or propogandized art is not art at all. Art, after all, is meant to be an individualized form of self-expression--even if a class full of students is meant to draw from the same model, they will likely all render a different end result.
But, at the same time, art--whether it is visual, musical, or otherwise, is ultimately meant to please a mass audience, or else, the artist will fail to make a profit, so there must be a certain degree of conformity in the production process. As I was saying in class today, "50 million Nickelback fans can't be wrong."
So what are your thoughts? To what extent is art already censored to a certain degree, thus making the propoganda process unnecessary?