Of course it does depend somewhat on what you consider 'recent'. For instance, D.W. Griffith's movie Birth of a Nation made in 1915 was surely a racist document. Was it art? I leave that to others, but it certainly was created within what we think of as an art form. And that movie wasn't alone in glorifying the idea of white supremacy. The KKK as heroes? Hmmm....

>I think I understand now. The miseries of life have always been expresssed in art and especially music. That includes using it as a form of free speech to voice your opinion against your girlfriend, your parents, the government, the current dictator, or just the establishment. However, it does seem that recently it has turned into a means of expressing hate, prejudices, and racism.
>
>
>
>>>>>>I guess definition of art is as wide as that hole Romo ran through, but I'll give it a shot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is from todays installment of Tuesday Morning Quarterback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>...because now "artist" rather make a political (or social or regligious) statement with their art than make art.
>>>>>>
>>>>>As opposed to the art, music, literature of bygone eras which had no political, social, or religious content whatsoever????????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course there were. geeezzz...
>>>>
>>>>But it is my opinion that there seems to be more of the hateful and derogatory art. To me art should be uplifting and inspiring.
>>>
>>>With all due respect, you may misunderstand art. However defined (paintings, music, writing, architecture, etc.), art has a long and illustrious history of provocation. It sticks a needle in delicate places and presses hard. That's the point. Not all art provokes but it sure isn't out of character. I actually find it uplifting that we aren't all sentenced to dull lives with an inevitable conclusion. It's nice when things outside my normal realm make me think. I do not mean anything offensive about that; as an immigrant you know more than I ever will about being outside one's normal realm. But we do disagree about the meaning and value of art.
>>
>>You're right I'm no expert.
>>IMHO there's provocation and then there is milicious hateful act. I think there is a difference.
>>
>>If a person drew a NAZI swastika with derogatory message about jewish people, would that be art? How about the cross in urine, aka Piss Christ? I guess as long as it offends only the Christians and Jews it's ok.
>>
>>Like I said I recognize that art comes in many forms in wide range of definition, but I believe it has gotten to a point where the line between art and junk is getting very thing. The definition of art has cheapened and deluted.
>>
>>Yeah I know, personal taste is a big part of art.
>>
>>Anyways that's my opinion.... so there.