The aim of this paper is to surface what to me looks like a delicate art political paradox. The paradox I perceive is this: in every liberal-capitalist society art is good (and more art is better) and thus art is eligible to public support, good art more so, but as there is no inherently bad (or evil) art, no art should be suppressed. The values of art (whichever they might be) are to be distributed through an active and engaging criticism, through art education, and communicated to permeate all of society to participate in. This cultural policy is almost a blue-print of the utopian ideas of the avantgarde, especially of the different strands of neo-avantgardism (conceptual art, performance, art activism, relational aesthetics, etc.) which all emphasizes notions of participation, emancipation, creativity, critical engagement, and co-operation. Although thus agreeing in ambition ― and this is the crucial and questionable presumption of my paradox ― this does not happen. The successful artists are (still) obviously those who perform in the art market and have retrospectives at important venues, and not any hypothetical artist producing the abovementioned goods. Furthermore it seems to me ― given the immeasurability of the quantities ― that the degree of engaging criticism, education and communication is inversely proportional to the success of any artistic practice. The implicit answer to this paradox seems univocally to be that we just have to push harder, to increase the support for the artists and to further encourage the public to take an active part in art. Instead of continuing on this path, I would like to invite you ― as a thought experiment ― to consider the art politics of Leonid Brezhnev (1964–85, including the two successive gerontics, Andropov and Chernenko). Or, to be more precise: the consequences for artistic practice of Brezhnev’s cultural policy. To do so we will consider the changes of the artistic practices following the zastoya of Brezhnev by the some of the Moscow Conceptualists (Collective Actions and AptArt), as well as some lesser known practices of the Mit’ki group and the Necrorealists in Leningrad, compared to the changes in the same artistic practices that came with the perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev (1985–91).