Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Art has always been seen as the platform for uninhibited self-expression that is raw in its creativity. Furthermore, it is expected of artworks to push the envelope of the socially accepted, introducing viewers to the complexity of certain moral arguments. However, in some instances, art might appear to be undeniably offensive to the point where the reasonability of its very existence is put into question (Sorabji 4). Therefore, the moral dilemma of whether freedom of expression in art must trump the feelings of vulnerable communities that it may offend arises. Freedom of expression must be maintained in art since imposing restrictions on artistic representations of some ideas suggests that any topic may be deemed as unmentionable, thus, removing any possibility of a reasonable discussion.
One could argue that prohibiting certain themes and topics to surface in art can be regarded as relatively harmless since art is typically seen as divorced from sociopolitical and socioeconomic life. However, the specified assertion cannot be further away from the truth. Multiple studies confirm that art serves a crucial social function of allowing its creators to interpret specific events and express their opinions on the subject matter in a new, nuanced, and unusual way (Sorabji 63). For example, Asavei postulates that art cannot be separated from the social context in which it was created (14). Thus, preventing artists from referencing to, addressing, or portraying specific events, people, or phenomena in their art pieces will imply marking certain societal issues as a taboo. In turn, the specified gesture will affect the quality of the social dialogue and create a threat for democracy on a global level. Therefore, art must be seen as the environment free of restrictions.
At the same time, the idea of free expression in art might sound slightly more questionable when considering how stretchy the notion of art can be. Whereas free expression as the opportunity to introduce the audience to ay ideas using either traditional or digital tools must be celebrated, performative art may result in certain dilemmas when denied any limitations. Furthermore, when taken to its extreme, performative art may affect viewers, causing them distress and possible physical harm (Sorabji 65). Finally, performative art, particularly, theater and cinema, can be used as a potent and powerful tool for propaganda, which adds another layer to the controversy regarding the subject matter (Sorabji 66). Thus, one could argue that certain art forms may require censorship as the means of protecting viewers.
Nevertheless, the significance of freedom of expression must trump possible controversies. While the dilemmas mentioned above can be resolved by introducing measures for keeping audiences aware of the potential impact and, thus, ensuring that an artwork is appreciated in a safe setting, restricting the access to art will create premises for stifling democratic principles and creative thought (Sorabji 68). Though some art might be seen as distasteful or provocative, ensuring viewers safety must be implemented by setting age restrictions and enhancing viewers safety as opposed to prohibiting certain art pieces or forms of artistic expression completely.
Freedom in art must not be restricted due to the potential implications that it may have on the right to voice opinions concerning any events or issues, including those that affect vulnerable populations. Though some art may be seen as distasteful and even offensive, its very existence supports the concepts of free speech and the freedom of expression as the fundamental principles of democracy.
Works Cited
Asavei, Maria Alina. Aesthetics, Disinterestedness, and Effectiveness in Political Art. Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.
Sorabji, Richard. Freedom of Speech and Expression: Its History, Its Value, Its Good Use, and Its Misuse. Oxford University Press, 2021.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.