>The death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, and Nikita Khrushchev's Thaw, paved the way for a wave of liberalization in the arts throughout the Soviet Union. Although no official change in policy took place, artists began to feel free to experiment in their work, with considerably less fear of repercussions than during the Stalinist period.
Artists felt considerably less fear of being prosecuted? Prosecuted because they painted something? Paintings are dangerous? I thought guns were dangerous. Who fears paintings? Such a silly thing to fear.
Gorbachov's goal was to end the USSR, so no surprise his first reforms were in the cultural realm.
Things were bad enough with visual arts, but very few people care about visual arts or literature. If you deny those people completely, you would get more trouble than if you just let them do their thing in solitude and simply spy on them and take care of the most dangerous ones. Let the hippies have just a little bit of freedom, just keep the commoners away. That's the equilibrium you want to keep, if you desire a long utilitarian rule.
The really atrocious deeds were done in performance arts like cinematography and music. Everything had to go through a censor. Almost every movie had to support the class struggle or put the party in a good light. Commons people don't stare at paintings. They watch films. They listen to music. In my country, artists were repressed because they refused to sing praises to the communist party. Their relatives thrown in jail. Their kids were refused higher education. Obedient artists were promoted (and put on a piedestal), even though they were of a lesser talent.