Should there be limits to artistic freedom?

There should be freedom on the imagination of artists but limitation on their execution. Artists should not make art out of bothering people, hurting their sentiments, stirring up nuisance. Such artists are only seeking cheap publicity and morally corrupted. …

Can art be limited?

While these artworks are not unique, they are still considered original artworks—and can be as important to artists as their one-of-a-kind pieces. With limited editions, artists restrict the total amount of artworks produced in the edition, so that each individual work will retain its value over time.

Why do we need limitation?

Having limits helps us organize investments of our time, energy and other resources. The idea of limits is to not overdo it or invest too few of our resources into a specific thing. If we invest less than necessary, things don’t go into the direction we want.

Does art ever cause harm to a society?

Art influences society by changing opinions, instilling values and translating experiences across space and time. Research has shown art affects the fundamental sense of self. Painting, sculpture, music, literature and the other arts are often considered to be the repository of a society’s collective memory.

Do you think censorship of art is necessary?

Censorship of the arts is necessary to protect both children and adults from images and other artistic content that lack redeeming social values. If you are an adult, you should be allowed to see, read, write, and create whatever you please.

Is there a limit to art?

To address Quora User ‘s answer of a supposed lack of limits, art functions within society, and is a product of its culture. While functioning within these cultural boundaries, it is impossible for art to be limitless. Even the idea that art is mere self-expression is a product of modern culture, and is an example of a particular limit on art.

Does art need to be as per the view of society?

Art does not always need to be as per the view shared by the society. Some freedoms should be given to artists. But everyone needs rules. ARtists cannot intrude on the lives of people (sophie calle) and just call it art. At the end of the day, You cannot abuse people and be able to excuse it as ‘art’.

Should art be concerned with ethics?

Art has nothing to do with ethics, it has to do with expression, and therefore art should only be concerned with the artist’s expression at any particular moment. If art were to be ethical, it would need to be controlled, and there is no such thing as “controlled art”; to think so is to not understand the nature of art.

Should art only be about the artist’s expression?

No, it should be simply an expression. Art has nothing to do with ethics, it has to do with expression, and therefore art should only be concerned with the artist’s expression at any particular moment.