I love all the arts ... well except for dance which feels to me like something that's hard to do but not that interesting to watch, but that's just me. I personally have only made a significant investment of time in music and photography. Like you, I have spent over 5 decades pursuing how to make photography as art and I would hope no one needs to know anything about me, my politics, my worldview, my religious faith, my inseam size, or my preferred pronouns ("Your Majesty"/"Your Lordship") to judge the merits of my work. Whether it's good or bad, it needs to stand or fall on it's own merits.
But you, my dear fellow, are in for a severe drubbing. You are straying from the One Approved Way that modern intellectuals demand of us all. We must, must. must, contemplate our sins, the sins of our fathers, and and anything they deem as offensive AND whether we have apologized sufficiently for these before we make "art". Even then, the art must directly support their demanded agenda or it will be labeled as "racist", "classist", "xenophobic" and a host of other imagined new sins. But if you do bow to their demands, you get to produce execrable drivel, call it art, and probably get a show at a major gallery for it. These people cannot imagine a world in which art stands on its own merits because ... they're incapable of doing anything that well themselves.
This injecting of agenda has always been somewhat present in art, likely from the beginning of human existence. What's different today is that the demand now is that the agenda replace the art because it's so verrrrrrrrrry important. If you want a close look at the levels of lunacy this has reached in the arts circle, I highly commend the brilliant "Rape Of The Masters" by Robert Kimball. He's a fine art critic and he just disembowels the agenda peddlers and the academic high priests that pimp for them, in that book.