I disagree with the statement because the moral expectations of the audience still has to be considered. …show more content…
An artist creates meaningful works, to capture the audience attention or to express the deep and innermost emotions that they feel necessary to bring forward to the public. In art, artists are able to express and explore their ideas. In the Human Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, it states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”, and also states that “this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” This can be referred to art and artistic freedom as it can be argued that an artist should be able to explore their ideas and experiment with art regardless of the audience expectations and tolerance level. To a certain extent, artistic freedom is also what exposes the public to new ideas, and new thoughts. It is also a way to bring awareness to certain concepts and ideas, and is also a way to convey information to the public. Without artistic freedom, the artist would not be able to explore these ideas and bring out new ideas and information as they would be so restrained from doing anything that could capture the interests of the public. Instead of censoring the artist’s decisions in creating art works, it is possible to allow the artist to experiment with their own creativity whilst also preventing any controversy or issues with the public. Rather, we could take into consideration of who could feel offended by certain artworks, and prevent them from viewing it. Instead of censoring artistic freedom, censoring the viewership of that particular art piece is an option. Therefore, controlling who can view the art piece instead, allows the the artists to have the freedom and the space they need to create works, and at the same time preventing anybody from feeling offended by any art