1) A suggestion is made for the readers and to the society to change how the judge and think about artists.
2) Writers tries to convey new norms, forbid judgement.
What do you think the writer tried to do here?
So while an artist should be allowed to have down periods, it also shouldn't be surprising if people move on. We're not looking for needles in haystacks anymore, we're looking for needles in a stack of needles. There may be value in coveting needles and hay from a particular artist, but that's an intensely personal decision to make.
If you get stuck on words, expressions, or idioms and constantly interpret them wrong, it usually means that you can't parse context well. If the expression "must be allowed" bothers you in this text, your OECD literacy level is most likely below 3.
It's easy to fix if you start reading more books, you start to improve.
If you can't parse the context from the writing, there is no context for you.
Do you not see the irony here? Commenters, too, should be allowed to have bad takes
And that is assuming it is genuine misunderstanding and not, like, typical nerdy "I refuse to actual engage with those idiots from other fields, better just make up something".
Well, if it is common in English to refer to the situation when the public opinion about you is allegedly shaped by your last work as "not allowed to make bad work" than indeed I do not know English on the third level of OECD literacy. But that sounds like a very peculiar trait of English, and a very deep ideological commitment incorporated into the language on a level that I couldn't expect.
This is where you are wrong.
It is not based on the idea of freedom. The point of the article, and the title, has nothing to do with whether someone is legally allowed to make bad art, or has some fundamental human rights, that are being infringed on, related to freedom.
Instead, the purpose of the article, and the title, is that because artists are more in the public eye these days, this extra scrutiny on every single piece of work that they do, has anti-creative effects on artists, and this is bad.
The only person who invented a fictional narrative about freedom, was you. The actual point of the title, and the article, was actually pretty obvious though, if you aren't looking for some gotcha.
> that I couldn't expect.
It was actually very easy to understand the article, if you start from the idea of "This article author isn't completely stupid, let me think for a second as to what such a person might be attempting to say, assuming they do not believe the obviously untrue statement that making bad art is illegal".
So, explain what does any of that has to do with “not being allowed” to do something?
What it has to do with that, is not that artists are literally prevented by the law from making bad art.
Instead, it is that artists should be able to make bad art, without suffering significant negative consequences from doing so.
So, you should interpret the statement as being "artists must be able to make bad art, without suffering significant negative consequences for doing so"
That is the intent of the title.
This is what "allowed" means in this context.
It means "it must be possible for them to do this, while not suffering significant negative consequences."
Because by "allowed to" what it means is "to be able to do so, without suffering significant negative consequences."
So, that would be the definition of "allowed to" that is being referred to, which is both true and justified.