Art definitely can be used as a weapon

Art definitely can be used as a weapon, but it shouldn’t be. When used to influence others, the effect can be tremendous and uncontrollable. For example, we have seen the devastating consequences of propaganda during WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, where art is expressed through propaganda to alter the mindset of people into believing often untrue illustrations of reality. This directly violates the 18th article of the agreement of the majority of the countries globally – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. Weaponizing art is essentially giving consent to this violation, allowing those who have power over art (usually politically authoritative people) to also have power over people’s thoughts. In addition to a violation of human rights, this also violates many fundamental definitions of art, which, defined by Plato, is “representational or mimetic of ordinary physical objects”. If art is no longer a representation of reality but used to alter people’s perceptions of reality, then the foundation of art has diminished.
In the article Modern Art was CIA’s “Weapon”, Frances Stonor Saunders brings up factual evidence of art weaponization. During the Cold War, for instance, the American government used art as a way to degrade the “creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power” of the Soviet Union. This illustrates the power of art to spread and advocate ideas. In fact, this has been the case throughout history. Throughout European history, it is inarguable that art has been used frequently to preach religious ideas to the public, thus giving it influence of other’s thoughts. In ancient China, emperors were often painted to look strong and handsome regardless of their actual appearances, again providing an example of art manipulating the way people perceive reality. However, the past does not indicate the present. Art should not be utilized as a weapon.