Is Censoring Art Justified?
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines art as “the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments or experiences that can be shared with others.” Art can also be roughly defined as the act of arranging things in a way so as to express our feelings. The exact definition of art is arbitrary, subjective and debatable. It changes according to the culture defining it and the times.
Art is perhaps as old as the human civilization itself. If art is about expression, society is about suppressing what it considers incorrect. It often happens that an artist observes what a section of the society doesn’t want to see, and tries to suppress his work by all means possible. In olden times, the artists were accused of heresy and were often killed. Killing is rare today in much of the world, but controversial artists still face problems because of their artistic creations and the elites often try to suppress their art in one way or another.
Art is still censored in practically each country in the world although the means and levels of tolerance vary. If the Soviets censored what they didn’t like by force, the self-proclaimed liberal Americans try to stifle criticism using their economic might. Why is it that a portion of people in the society try to subdue the observations of critical artists? Is it a must or do the powerful people have some sinister motives behind this?
Pro Censor Arguments
The leading argument is the preservation of moral values of a nation or society. Any art which goes contrary to the moral values held by a society can result in heated controversies and draw widespread protests by the general public. The caricature of Prophet Mohammad by Danish cartoonists which caused extensive uproar among the Muslim populations around the world and around 100 people were killed in protest caused by the public reaction to these cartoons. These deaths could have been prevented had a censorship board raised questions before these cartoons came out in the public.
Another reason for not allowing certain art forms to go public is to keep the financial state of big corporations or countries in order. Art forms like music can arouse doubts over the way a corporation or country does business. Also, a movie on the looming environmental dangers can turn popular opinion against a business house or nation and attract many (some undeserved) lawsuits from the general public if released during or immediately after an environmental catastrophe involving that company or country. This can frighten away investors thus worsening the situation; a little censorship in these cases can not only avoid unfair litigations but also help solve problems quickly.
Art forms like ‘graffiti’ which have sprung up in their current form only in the 20th century do little more than defacing historical monuments and making city walls look tawdry. Graffiti culture has spread to practically all corners of the world since it first came in limelight during the French students’ protests in May 1967 when the protesting students tarted up the walls of Paris with slogans like L’ennui est contre-révolutionnaire (Boredom is counter-revolutionary). Censoring graffiti on the places of historical importance is only a method of keeping art constructive. Keeping in mind the wider scenario it’s always a better option to censor the art pieces before they are allowed to come out and ban those which are degenerating.
Sometimes it becomes essential to censor some art pieces in the wider interest of people. The government of India’s threats (World Socialist Web Site, April 2010) to Booker Prize-winning novelist, Arundhati Roy, for being pro-Naxalite is an example of this. Her works portray the Indian government as anti-people and contain the potential to influence the youth. If precautions are not taken, the government fears, literary works of this kind can destabilize the country causing suffering to the millions.
The purpose of art is to make us appreciate aesthetic elements around us. It follows that art pieces which mock God and hurt the feelings of devout are failing at fulfilling their purpose and therefore should be censored.
It is not hidden from the world that how art was manipulated under Stalin’s rule to create a cult of personality and control discontent among the impoverished population. If uncensored, these art forms can create a false image of a nation in other countries and result in people asking their governments to provide benefits with conditions which are not sustainable.
Pornography, an art form aimed at the expression of indecent sexual matters, can have many undesired consequences if it is not censored and the children are allowed to watch it.
Art shouldn’t be censored
Morality should not be confused with the quality of being good. It is rather a code by which a society runs its everyday life; similar to drive-on-left or drive-on-right laws. What is considered taboo in a society can be a norm in some other society or region and if this is taken as the basis for censoring art then virtually everything we know of would be censored. Here is an example: Cows are revered in most parts of India and harming them can evoke public anger; on the other hand beef is widely eaten in Europe and North America and no body raises an eyebrow. It means eating cows is not intrinsically good or bad else, either all Indians are fools or all beef eaters are wicked.
Artists are normally conceived of as highly talented individuals who can see and point out what is wrong with a society and broaden the public minds. Censoring art means taking away from the people their right-to-know and to dumb down the population. Uncensored art is as important to the development of a society as criticism. A picture of Adam with a navel is criticism of the myths we believe in and if censors had their way in Europe we would still have been living in the Dark Ages.
Because art is the expressions of an artist, censoring art is equivalent to violating the right of free speech. People can always choose not to look at what they don’t feel conformable with but asking an artist to stop practicing art because it doesn’t suit society is ridiculous. In the 21st century, when we are all becoming more and more globalised, we have got to develop some tolerance for things that don’t conform to our beliefs.
The decline of a society begins when things it frowns upon are censored. The Muslims once ruled from Spain in the West to North India in the east, from Siberia in the north to all the way to Indonesia. It was only when sometime in the 11th century they began to restrict the non-conventional arts that their decline began.
Criticism of graffiti is not entirely true; it is only an art form we are not used to yet. If graffiti is censored then after a couple of centuries, people would read in history books how cruel we were to suppress new art forms.
Conclusion
Art doesn’t always have to be the way we like it, so censoring it only to suit our tastes is unethical and violation of human rights. An artist has the freedom to express what he/she feels and nobody, for whatever reason, has the right to censor his work. History is full of examples when great ideas are mocked at by the society as dangerous when they first appear but then everyone gets to like them and this is how a society develops. Censoring art would only mean stopping the development of a society.
