Before we address the question contained in the assignment, we will have to get an insight into what the concept of art actually stands for, which in itself, represents a great challenge, simply because there is no uniformity in how social scientists define this concept. Nevertheless, within the context of discussing art as a socio-political phenomenon, it is best described as an aesthetic indication of cultural and scientific progress’ continuity. In its turn, this explains why the objective value of artistic expressions cannot be thought of as a “thing in itself” – people’s inclination to indulge in artistic pursuits actually reflects their ability to build and maintain civilization. For example, without knowing anything about such countries as Italy and Equatorial Guinea, one can still get a very good idea as to what these countries represent, simply by the mean of looking at Michelangelo’s statues, on one hand, and on primitive African figurines, carved out of wood, on another. Therefore, it is not simply a coincidence that the existence of totalitarian political regimes in the 20 th century had not only resulted in the political power of art is significantly increased, but also in providing additional momentum to the pace of scientific progress. Apparently, a totalitarian form of political governing creates metaphysical preconditions for citizens to associate their existence with the concept of purposefulness. In its turn, this boosts up people’s sense of perceptional idealism; thus, increasing their willingness to participate in artistic pursuits and also making them more psychologically susceptible to the ideological meaning of government’s sponsored art. Nowadays, it is being commonly assumed that the concepts of art and totalitarianism are diametrically opposite, while in fact, it is actually another way around – the very essence of art is totalitarian, simply because, during the course of the creative process artists strive for nothing less than having their works being referred to as such that represent an unsurpassed aesthetic value, while often denying even a remote possibility that the works of other artists might be equally valuable. In her article “Art and Political Agendas”, Martica Sawin is making a very good point when she suggests it is conceptually fallacious to associate art with the concept of democracy alone: “It is utterly simplistic to assume that artistic independence goes hand-in-hand with democratic institutions while it is absent completely in totalitarian states” (Sawin, 1993, p. 94). Today, only very ignorant people would deny the fact that ancient Roman and Greek ideals of physical beauty and intellectual excellence served as the foundation for Western aesthetics, throughout the history of Western civilization, due to these ideals’ objective value. In other words, during the course of millennia, Europeans subconsciously longed towards antique ideals of beauty, despite being spiritually oppressed by Christianity, which glorified the “destruction of flesh”. However, it was namely Fascist and National-Socialist regimes that allowed citizens to realize such their artistic longings, by encouraging artists to popularise the aesthetic ideals of antiquity and Renaissance. In his article “Fascist Aesthetics and Society”, George L. Mosse states: “The aesthetic which stood at the center of this civic religion (Fascism) was the climax of a long development. The idea of beauty was central to this aesthetic, whether that of the huma