Art, in every single iteration it has, always tried to elevate civilization and thought.
The Venus of Willendorf, although crude, is perhaps the earliest representation of a feminine figure, most probably a fertility goddess. There is no way to avoid pointing how potentially sexualized the sculpture is/was yet the first considered theory on it points not to an objectified woman-figure but to a superior entity materially embodied in every single woman in existence.
If such a concept does no service to empower women, none does.
In the same line of thought, after that statuette, many other representations of women have been created that do not reduce the woman but instead elevates her. It's the culture surrounding those representations that - including the present day one - try to label such images as negative.
People often overlook the message. Or ignore it for immediate satisfaction.
I remember reading an article on a bromze statue of a fishmonger woman, in Ireland, if memory serves me well, where the woman os seen pushing her cart along the street, with a very low cut breast dress, which almost exposes her breasts. For some reason, it took on an urban legend that stroking the statues breasts brought good luck and tourists - of all people - made it a thing to do. The local counsel, very disturbed, tried to remove the statue arguing maintenance, then echoing the complaints of citizen groups that argued the statue shed bad light on the town's image. It took historians to explain why the statue was as it was, down to period clothing and even child care!
The statue had stood in its place for decades with no ill coming its way until puritans decided they had to be bothered on behalf of others. That alone should tell us a good deal.
Maybe we should bring back Egyptian and Greek classical statuary. Naked people, half human/half animal representations, ambiguous sexuality and morphology... Force the dialogue a bit.
That might be correct in some places but not where I live.
Recurring taxes on property are calculated with the age of houses taken into consideration. This means the property value for taxation actually decreases over time, unless a given area undergoes through a serious development effort that forces property value up. This can reach such extreme cases that it is possible to get away with remodelling a house - as in a single standing building - completely, fully modernize it, and still keep its property value untouched, unless swimming pools and other value increasing additions are put in.
Property value and commercial value are separate and independent concepts. A property appraised for taxation in 100€ can sell for 100 times that value. There will be sale fees taxes applied to the transactions itself, for the buyer, and the seller may have to pay income taxes on the sale, but there are way to skirt most of these.
And then there are rents.
I pay more taxes on my work than a person for the rent they receive by renting property. It used to be a flat rate of 28%, equal to deposit interest and other values, but then someone said if the taxation on rents was to go down, the rents would go down and more housing would come into the market. Except it did not happen and instead rents shot up and opaque companies started buying homes to rent from people that could not be bothered to manage what they had and pay their taxes on a yearly basis.
Everyone loses.