Do you believe artistic expression should be restricted if an artist's creations bring social disgust?

  • Misuse of artistic expression.......

    Mind blowing masterpieces of art emerge when an artist is permitted to work without interference of any kind and they are rightly awarded as well... In principle... I firmly believe that an artist's freedom should be respected but it is observed that sometimes problems arise when artists misuse art in such a manner that it proves to be offensive and detrimental to society and community, thus hurting their sentiments. Govt should then immediately step in to avoid escalation of tensions...... And promote harmony...By enforcing rules......SO I BELIEVE ARTISTS SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTIONS.....

  • No, You can't

    Since India is a land of art and culture, And most of our historic works are protected in the form of art. Imagine if our artists at that point would have been told to be restricted, We could never end up with such knowledge of our ancestors and might be living in a complete different world altogether

  • Who Tells Our Story?

    Our history is not only told in books. It is composed in music, Painted in media, And broadcasted through podcasts so those of future generations can comprehend the triumphs and downfalls of their ancestors. "The Man" cannot dictate our history to teach our children. Those from all corners of the world need to have their voices heard, Whether it is now or decades in the future. The death and despair of wars, Religion, And social construct need to be taken into consideration, Especially of those who do not hold power. The common man. With creative restrictions, The truth would cease to exist.

  • Art is ideas

    The Artist having conceived an idea has a responsibility and an obligation to that which has been conceived.
    It has nothing to do with anyone else at that moment.
    For the idea to live in any sense outside of the Artists imagination it has to be communicated.
    How the idea is communicated, either by; speech, song, poem, picture, dance, film or book is the choice of the artist who bears the responsibility for the choice they make.
    Each Artist must filter the idea through their humanity and get it out the best they can.

  • No they shouldn't

    Art can be used to protest injustices or raise awareness regarding social or political issues. By restricting artistic expression, you limit its potential ability to benefit a democratic society and contribute to social development. This, and the fact that it is a right (in most countries), mean that we cannot justify regulating artistic creativity.

  • No, no, no.

    In the words of W. Somerset Maugham "Every production of an artist should be the expression of an adventure of his soul", and if you restrict an artist of expressing themselves, simply due to how the public feel about their work, and if they comply to this then they are not an artist, they are a whore, slut or harlot.

  • Artist should have the freedom of expression

    No, I do not believe that artist should be restricted if his or her creation bring social disgust. What one may find disgusting another may find interesting and appealing. Beauty and art is in the eye of the beholder. It is not up to one to make a decision for many on what is art.

  • No restrictions on art

    There should be no restrictions or censorship on art as long as their actions are not directly illegal - not causing physical harm to another human being, specifically. Otherwise, art that is otherwise considered transgressive should not only be permissible, but should be witnessed so as to open a discussion.

  • Artists should not be censored.

    I believe artists should not be restricted in any way. I think an artist is not doing their job if their work does not cause some negative response, and a good work should provoke. If their work becomes too extreme, it will be self limiting because too many people will stop looking at their work, and artists ultimately want an audience.

  • No one should prevent artists from expressing themselves, but that does not mean they deserve funding.

    Artists should not be prevented from expressing or creating, even if that means that they create works of social disgust. But, prevention does not mean that failing to be funded by the public or a private individual is somehow restrictive. Artists are not entitled to payment for their work, and as with any other item produced, consumers should be free to purchase or not purchase art.

  • No They Shouldn't

    I do not believe artistic expression should be restricted if an artist's creations bring social disgust. There's actually no reason to do this because if an audience isn't attracted to an artists work then people won't view it. In return, no one really ends up seeing it and it's a failure.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.