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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.