Art is a sentiment, a feeling, an observation... It is not condoning anything or suggesting anything be fact or that something is right. Just like TV shows depict war and murder but do not condone it, art is just expressing something. An artist can share whatever they feel or imagine. Thank you.
Art shouldn't have to be manipulated by people who get offended. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that one has the right not to get offended. Artists should be able to create whatever they want and should not conform to people who find it offensive. Art is an expression of oneself and not an expression of the collective. One is not required to look at an "offensive" piece of art if he does not want to.
It's a simple fact. People have freedom of speech right? Same goes for art. Some people can't put whatever they feel in words. So what's the next best option? Art of course. If that's how you feel then that's how you feel. It's one's opinions, just like what people say in real life. If you don't like it, then leave it. Simple.
This is the important thing. No artist or any other person should be stopped from expressing his/her views, no matter how "offensive" or "seditious" they are. The main reason is that offensiveness etc., are all subjective concepts and are not constant forever. And the next thing is that the artist is just saying something and not doing it. So no loss is done and no one is actually hurt. If we want we can put a warning saying how offensive the work is or limit it's screening but outright ban is not good. Because art and other forms of expressions represent various streams of thought in society. Only when all streams of thought are able to spread and interact truly can we reach the truth, not by censoring or removing some streams of thought.
Keep in mind, the question is about Making art, not Displaying art. Obviously, not all artistic expressions will be considered appropriate for every venue, location or age group. But as far as the right to create art, that is freedom of speech and expression, and should not be abridged, so long as it doesn't interfere with or do real harm to anyone else.
Artists should have the freedom to depict whatever they wish, even if said art is racist, sexist, homophobic or slanderous. However, art can be anything. Just as art can be offensive, there can also be empowering art that is feminist friendly. There's also satire of establishments, such as patriarchy. Art can be created but it may also be criticized.
There need to be boundaries to this freedom for those who want to make money or simply share their work with the public. This is not about an oversensible society nor a cut of personal freedom but about people who are not only offended but deeply crushed or traumatised.
Extrem breasts might be offensive but that's a self made standard; protecting children and victims from violence like rape, Holocaust and murder are topics where we have to enforce sympathy for the sake of those who are not ready to cope or already destroyed.
Find a private room if you want to be overly controversial. This does not mean, that we have the right to demand an artist to follow our personal interpretation of art. And being a bit offended, just because I don't like it, is not what this applies to.
I agree, if the art is public, NO.
If we agreed on a direction and a vision of how we want the world to be, then yes, because the more we as artist feed into the system of depicting clad women, grotesque monsters and so on, the more the world and society sees that glorification as justification of and for their behavior.
We as artist have a responsibility and duty to uphold a vision of the world to be proud of.