Should Art Be Censored?

Art is supposed to be the expression of feelings, the visual representation of what the artists is feeling or trying to show. All people need to have the freedom to express opinions and feelings to the extent that is acceptable, but who is to say what is acceptable? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but who is the beholder, and who gave them the superiority to decide what is P.C or not. Rudolph Giuliani has no right to decide for a city what is acceptable or not, art is an expression of a person, and putting certain restrictions on that is like fastening someone's mouth shut.

So how to decide who puts borders on things, well Rudolph Giuliani thinks he can. Whoever is actually doing the artwork is the only one who knows the reasons behind its creation and the feelings that were present at the time. Boundaries in art are a hard thing to do, some people think the work of Damien Hirst is "sick, foul and outrageous" (Robinson 1) but the deeper meaning of this work may just not be understood by the viewer, so who says they should be able to censor it.

Big Blue Fox interviews Uncle Kage and Dave Robins...

Robinson, Hugh

Damien Hirst, the creator of the work, was part of...

No one is fully able to define all the borders for an artist's work, people have different tastes and opinions. For instance Giuliani goes up for re-election, "bans hot-dog vendors from midtown sidewalks [and] sells off public gardens in poor neighbourhoods to private developers", (Robinson 1) so do all these decisions make him a viable resource for judging an art exhibit. He seems to be quite against a lot of modern things, so this would give him a large bias towards more traditional art. No one is able to put full and total boundaries on any type of art, different people...