To an extent, this impression is accurate, and I would defend the rationale that has allowed such an impression to circulate, and prevail, insofar as it aims to protect the vulnerable, or those who are unable to make distinctions between art that contextualizes evil (and thus has a chance of obtaining to the level of art), and certain kinds of so-called art, which, intentionally or not, would invert evil, and glorify it, or would handle it with such carelessness that the work becomes morally vapid, a confusion or bewilderment of value, and, finally, an exercise in gratuitousness, or in the morbid pleasure of producing shock.