The point of the Enlightenment was that the arts changed for the better because they started to be free from these constraints that we find in society. That said, the arts did not change so much in the sense that they were completely different. The arts were not like they are today, but they were not completely different. They were not developed as a result of the Enlightenment. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that the Enlightenment was a positive thing.
Now, perhaps, we can look at the Enlightenment as a “negative” thing. In so doing, we can see that in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, the arts were developed in such a way as to be free from the constraints that society places on them. It seems to me that a lot of those constraints were imposed on the arts by society. It became a point of emphasis that they shouldn’t be constrained by such things as religion.
The Arts in the Enlightenment were not free from constraints. They were subject to the same constraints as other art forms. Yet the artists who were influenced by the Enlightenment were able to make their own way. We can see this as the result of self-awareness. The artists of the Enlightenment were freer because they were able to think for themselves and make up their own rules.
In the 18th century the artists were constrained by religion and were thus required to conform to the religious ideas of their time. But in the 19th and 20th centuries, artists who were influenced by the enlightenment were able to create their own way. They were free to create art that was not based on religious constraints. The arts in the Enlightenment werent free from restrictions, they were not bound by religious dogma, they could create art that was not constrained by religious dogma.
The artists of the Enlightenment were free to create art that was not constrained by religious dogma, they were free to create art that was not based on religious dogma, they created art that was not based on religious dogma.
You can argue that there were no artists in the Enlightenment because there was no art. There was, however, no one who was not bound by religious dogma.
Artists were constrained by religious dogma. The idea of the artist being free to create art not based on religious dogma was very important to the Enlightenment, but it took a while for the Enlightenment to see it. Artists in the 17th century were quite free to write about God, but they were not necessarily free to write about God without religious constraints.
This idea that artists, as those who wrote about God, were being constrained by religious dogma (the Bible), was a big part of the Enlightenment. The idea that any artistic creation would have to be “objective” (as if any artist was ever free to create anything) and that this would somehow somehow cause the artist to be free was a major part of the Enlightenment.
This freedom of expression was not without its problems, as the Church had to give more and more power to the arts. In the 16th century, the artist’s work was often thought to be the expression of God’s will, the work of the devil, or simply the work of a madman. Now the artist had his own ideas about how he wanted his work to be interpreted, these ideas were often influenced by the Church’s ideas about art.
This is true of many artists today. The artist today can not only make art, he can decide what kind of art to make. Just as the Church could claim that God had created the arts to be art, the artist can claim that he has created his art to be art. The artist is in a powerful position to decide how he wants his art to be presented to the public and this can be a very powerful thing.
