Introduction
Art continuously attracts attention and cannot be isolated, permeating people’s lives and influencing their feelings and thoughts. The heightened interest in particular paintings, poems, movies, or musical compositions may be connected to their provocative moods and acute social themes. Art is limitless as long as the human mind has no boundaries and people can express themselves.
Censorship is an effective tool that creates a specific framework and regulates the harmful influence of provocative art on society. Some works may be subject to bans in light of inappropriate, sexual, violent, or degrading elements. Art should be censored to protect public morals, control the dissemination of unacceptable content, and promote cultural decency for social evolution.
Acceptability
Acceptability of art is an individual’s worldview that allows them to construct objects from cultural, social, spiritual, or emotional perspectives. Art carries several purposes, including educational and ideological ones, on personal and professional levels. They are achieved through a creator’s dialogue with a particular audience. In the effort to create a mental conversation lies the freedom of artists seeking a way to customize their communication with society.
However, not all dialog models are acceptable, as they can destroy civilization. Art, as an imaginative comprehension of reality, can display sexist, racist, or anti-Semitic innuendos. Still, it is counterproductive to defend art impunity, cutting it off from its connection to reality (Malița 22). Offensive artworks can spread hatred or humiliate certain groups of people based on ethnicity, sex, religion, or other criteria.
Causes of Censorship
Among the reasons for censoring art is the perception that it is offensive. There are still free, provocative, and controversial arts in the era of democracy, striving to create an equal society. Works that carry ideas of hatred, anger, and destructive powers are especially dangerous for current and future generations. The desire to maintain censorship stems from concerns about the impact of art on moral decay and religious and ethnic tensions (Mehta 49). Some artworks are offensive, pitting people against each other and causing communication bonds to break down.
For example, some exhibitions reject creations by established authors due to the solid political nuances that generate disruptive and polarizing discussions (Park and Benayoun 140). Art’s harsh nature affects one’s self-esteem, perception, and state of being in awe of the words of those around them. Apparently, censorship reduces the content of toxic, harmful, and disadvantageous elements, selecting socially acceptable art forms. Undoubtedly, they may be visually unpleasant and continue to illustrate society’s ills, but they are limited. Such art will consistently be strict but fair, and it will not aim to incite hatred and enmity between societal groups.
Another leading reason for using censorship in art is the need to stop destruction and collapse through the overuse of freedom of expression. Recently, it has become increasingly common to see performances that aim to undermine social relations. They can be related to the destruction of monuments, significant paintings, or heritage sites. Performance art, as a contemporary art form, is sometimes associated with the destruction of the old and traditional. Such art thus creates a gap in the historical understanding of world cultural studies.
Censorship can reveal what is acceptable, worthy of attention, and what is considered horrible and ugly within a particular culture (Malița 22). Some of these art forms should be banned because they corrupt already established objects, lower the cultural standard, and promote deviant behavior.
Acts of vandalism do not exclusively apply to traditional art objects. Painting houses, cars, and other people’s belongings cannot be art, and authors do not communicate with a specific audience in this case. Overall, such art’s purpose is to draw attention to various problems, but defacing property cannot be a solution to them. In addition, hostile and aggressive actions will repel followers. Many people will not stop by to join an activity that could potentially damage their property at any time.
Using forceful methods and inappropriate social behavior will not produce positive results in art. Instead, one can expect more disruption to peace and the maintenance of a healthy community. Hence, it must be recognized that specific models of artistic expression that are sufficiently aggressive and involve direct harm should be censored. A mechanism of total property protection is not possible, but legal mechanisms, as well as condemnation and censure, can be potent forces to stop destructive art.
Particular attention should be paid to age as a factor that limits access to materials. Age categories are vital for categorizing the arts, ensuring adequate maturation and education. There is a tendency in many cultures to protect minors and their unstrengthened psyche from provocative art (Malița 20). Excessive exposure to themes acceptable to adults can lead to instability in a child’s psyche, making them susceptible to other social influences in early adulthood. A high level of spirituality, characterized by a striving for moral ideals, does not allow pornographic moments in photographs, movies, or cartoons to be shown to the public, especially children (Droubay et al. 1652).
Not all topics, including complex ethical issues, violence, or cruelty, should be covered without being labeled as censorship, as a child’s mind is not fully capable of comprehending them. Demonstration of such topics will necessarily put a strain on a child’s mind. As a result, there are risks to a generation with excessive cravings for committing cruelty or engaging in inadequate sexual behavior. Age censorship is a critical element needed in the arts to ensure the adequate maturation and development of children.
Art can incite or provoke hatred, and hate is expressed not only in the facts of violent and physical harm but also in the psychological pressure and impact on a person or society. Incitement to hatred as a phenomenon must be regulated, which can be achieved through legal and state mechanisms. From a legal perspective, offensive and hateful art should have consequences for its creators. Intentional insult or systematic oppression is not art, and those who do so have no right to say that it is a form of expression of free speech. Freedom is not synonymous with insults; therefore, laws should protect victims of such art and punish its creators. Hateful art can erode the standing of citizens and render them vulnerable to harm.
State oversight should include commissions and control systems that will determine the acceptability of art for categories. The best option would be to cooperate with the public so that censorship results from different opinions and does not have only one stakeholder. In such a case, censorship would not be only a punitive mechanism but also educational and strict to the extent necessary. Control should come from society’s understanding of the value of censorship as a tool to regulate the relationship between creators and their art. This aspect will enable art to be endowed with real value.
Conclusion
In conclusion, art should be censored to prevent moral degradation in the population and to promote comprehensive societal evolution. Humankind must strive for the beautiful and ideal, creating unique artworks that evoke light, bright, and cheerful feelings and emotions. In contrast, vandalism and offensive art contribute to the moral degradation of society and the erosion of fundamental ethical values through destruction and devastation. Censorship involves restrictions and prohibitions on disseminating certain content to prevent potential harm to populations, especially future generations.
Works Cited
Droubay, Brian A. et al. “The Pornography Debate: Religiosity and Support for Censorship.” Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1652-1667.
Malița, Liviu. “Arguing for Art, Debating Censorship.” Metacritic Journal for Comparative Studies and Theory, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019, pp. 5-35.
Mehta, Monika. “Censorship.” BioScope South Asian Screen Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2021, pp. 49-52.
Park, Lisa SoYoung and Maurice Benayoun. “A Cautionary Tale of Urban Media Art: Media-Bait, Planned Censorship and Its Repercussions.” Leonardo, vol. 53, no. 2, 2020, pp. 135-144.