What did you make of that article?
I sensed a somewhat sinister “woke” undertone…,
I say the premiss is false . . . Is art really subversive by nature? All art? I think that’s a pretty hard sell when you consider art over the course of human history. In what sense were the caves of Lascaux or the cathedrals (to pick but two obvious examples) subversive?
One could argue that art should be subversive, but that’s a different proposition.
Let us turn to Sigmund Freud for clarity.
That could be the problem right there . . .
Yes, indeed. Among other things, the reference to Freud – darling of the Frankfurt School – is a clue in that respect.
Link to sane article not behind paywall…
… 
… it ma be the case that many activities are subversive in nature.
Jon Rappoport often talks about how the artist (aka individual creativity) is seen as a “danger” to the socialist collective.
And meanwhile, some artists are being used to create (also perverse and ugly) art (memes, slogans, propaganda) designed to corral people into collective thoughts, ideals and behaviours by the goons who have set themselves up to farm humanity. For them, a “free” (unsponsored) artist is indeed dangerous, as he’s able to express ideas outside of the realm of words, and put ideas of “individual freedom” into peoples’ minds. The goon farmers of humans can’t have their livestock even thinking about living as creative free individuals, or the human farming system that they have created would collapse.
These goons want us to believe that anything we create for ourselves, including our own thoughts, is worthless – that only the “officially sanctioned art” has any value to anyone.
I like how Rappoprt, in his many writings, encourages everyone to free himself from the collective, and start creating his or her own reality, that respectfully connects with the individual realities of others. A beautiful idea…
Mass media IS propaganda, starting with the printing press…Without it, propaganda would be impossible.
Interesting little book, an education in itself.
… I find all of Postman’s work extremely valuable reading. 
I wish he was still with us. 
Personally, no, I do not think art is inherently subversive because I do not believe all art is social commentary. That said, I do think most art can become subversive or be interpreted as such by the powers that be at any given time or under certain circumstances. Example: Christian iconography is not subversive or understood to be so by its creators, but it certainly would be viewed as such (and moreover, idolatry) in Muslim cultures.
Christian iconography is viewed as idolatrous by some Christians, not just by Muslims. I’ve wondered about it myself.
Certainly, many activities – and particularly cultural ones, like art, education, and literature – can be subversive. My only quibble is that I don’t believe they’re inherently subversive, or subversive by nature.