The following is a brief preview - the full content of this page is available to premium users only.
Click here to subscribe...
The essential idea of art is self-expression, and it is a common belief that art also provokes thought and, consequently, occasionally controversy. Artists who create contentious pieces, those who push the boundaries of what is deemed ‘acceptable’, are often expressing the view that society needs to be provoked rather than sit in a monotonous state of regularity, conformity, and sometimes corruption. And yet, these artists can be considered to be rebelling against the rules of what is thought to be appropriate, and can unjustly have their expressions taken from them in the form of censorship.
Does the attempt of these artists to awaken society to its issues not strike a chord with other so-called rebels throughout history? Rebels, otherwise known as freedom-fighters, battling for their freedom through breaking the boundaries that dictate what they can and cannot do. People like Fidel Castro and even Rosa Parks, who do not set out to upset society, but rather have the belief that a change needs to be provoked. Certainly, censorship is an act that suppresses freedom, just as the law that forbade Rosa Parks from sitting on a bus because of her heritage was an act that suppressed her freedom. Today however, we have a world where a person has the freedom to swear at and insult whomever they want, freely, through a blog, but where an artist’s expression can be considered offensive and be censored. This article will explore the problem of freedom of expression versus the ‘need’ for censorship of perceived inappropriate artworks in public spaces, and how, in fact, artists might be considered society’s freedom fighters, at the least pushing the edges of society’s self-imposed ‘boundaries’.
A prime example... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline
