Revolution Or Interest

i have had it with mediocre art being defended; with claims that art shouldn't meddle in politics; that art should be seen on its own, not being associated with social issues; and not other issues either; i've had it with talentless artists praising their meaningless, bullshit art, abusing the rightful idea of "freedom of artistic expression" - yes artistic expression should not be quenched - but i retain my freedom to call your art boring if it is boring.
let's get rid of all that postmodern, substanceless art, that is completely generic, without goal, aim or purpose, all in the name of being "pure art", free from the seemingly drag of politics or cultural issues. yes, pure art might indeed exist or be viable - but your art isn't, it is not pure, it is dirt.
i propose the following: art should be revolutionary again. anarchistic. anticapitalistic. subversive. rebellious. against the status quo. for a free, just society. for ecstasy. or, if it is not, willingly - as i said, i value the freedom of the artist, he or she can of course be free of politics (although this might be a bit of a hard task, as everything is inherently political) - then at least have an interesting idea, concept, purpose with your art. something that is new, well-thought out, beautiful, groundbreaking, that was not there before. revolution or interest - that should be the claim. revolution or bust. if you don't want to be revolutionary in politics - at least be a revolutionary in mind. bring me something that stimulates my mind. that gives people new thoughts. but don't bore me with your generic art that has no purpose or substance, that wants to achieve nothing at all (there is indeed a way this could work - but this would have its place in another text), that sets not out to conquer gold, to reach out for the exciting.
be revolutionary. for a revolution of the mind. of society. but best - for both.