I think the whole Neoliberal system, was moribund on delivery, if seen through the view of the arts...
-------
I forgot the next point. The reason the arts declined over the neoliberal era was because the working class base, where most artist come from were cut off. It takes too much time and money to undergo the training and become proficient, and there is no support system to support that training and time. Which means that fewer and fewer working class people can afford to risk such careers. On the other hand the only class who can afford the time and risk are the elites, and they usually make lousy artists, writers, dancers, musicians, etc. Even the advance mass media suffer the same fate where you have to already have money to even get started---and or get patronage in advance of getting the training. When you go back and look at biographies of your favorite film maker, actor, actress, director, etc. you will find the vast majority got or lucked into some kind of support or patron early to get them over the big hump.
So as a consequence of all these social forces, we get more and more stupid in the arts.
You can see a similar process in 19thC art history, with the rise of the bourgeoisie, the arts became more and more marginalized until you get to the complete outcasts in the impressionists. Cezanne for example inherited a small fortune from his businessman father. It was just barely enough to live in the country in a small house. Van Gogh had his brother. A few like Pissarro and I think Monet had patrons and played the game of the haute bourgeoisie...
In the US painting during the period was done by bourgeoise ddilettantes