The idea that art is disruptive has ancient roots and is today ubiquitous. Its ubiquity in recent history is visible in the cultural policies of liberal and repressive states alike. While liberal governments have, by and large, fostered and protected artistic freedom as an engine of progress and societal self-criticism, repressive governments have restricted artistic freedom for the same reason.
Is the idea of art as intrinsically disruptive analytic or contingent? In this paper I will argue that while the phenomenology of aesthetic experience is in part intrinsically disruptive, it does not follow that the concept of art is also necessarily so. A large proportion of instances of artistic creativity, as well as our experience of it, is better understood in terms of compliance with cultural and aesthetic norms. Our intuitions to the contrary, I argue further, have more to do with the contingencies of twentieth-century history and the illusion of perpetual peace which governed its second half. The limits of this illusion are visible today both in art and politics.