“Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.”
-Cesar Cruz
For centuries, art has served as a profound language that artists have used to communicate with their audiences. Serving as a medium of expression, the power of visual and auditory artwork transcends linguistic, cultural, and religious barriers. Whether through paintings, graffiti, sculpture, architecture or music, artists drive social change by shedding light on social injustices, advocating for equality, and challenging oppressive systems.
The Flower Carrier (1935) by Diego Rivera, depicting a struggling man bent over by the weight of a large flower basket, is one of many prominent paintings that caused significant critical discourse in the early 20th century. Through his brushstrokes, Rivera aimed to paint a picture of the unimaginable plights of campesinos, the underprivileged vendors of Mexico. Interestingly, this painting has also been interpreted as a jab at capitalism, with Rivera accurately portraying the discrepancies between the higher and lower classes in the capitalistic society of his time. Ultimately, through his artwork, Diego Rivera was able to contribute to larger and much overdue conversations about social inequality, capitalism and communism.
What is Art Censorship?
Although perspectives toward art have been tirelessly shaped and reshaped by the current of time, art has persevered in its purpose: to communicate with audiences. However, art censorship is not a new concept and has existed throughout human history. It refers to the suppression, control and filtering of artistic expression based on specific criteria, mostly political or moral. Censoring art, whether it be Michelangelo’s paintings in the late sixteenth century or politically charged street graffiti even today, is essentially an attempt at controlling communication and the spread of ideas that may put one side at a disadvantage. The reasons for this silencing vary from protecting political reputations to preserving the well-being of vulnerable populations such as children.
Negative implications of censorship
A primary concern regarding art censorship is its subjectivity. Since the reasons for censorship are based solely on political, cultural, social, and moral contexts, there is a lack of a standardized rubric for what is considered ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ art. Often, these inconsistencies lead to the silencing of minority opinions, infringing upon their fundamental right to freedom of expression. This right is an important aspect of democratic societies, fostering open dialogue and public debate. Apart from this, censorship also raises questions about who holds the power to determine the acceptability of art. In a world where all people hold the right to opinions and free expression of them, what enables certain groups to dictate the ideologies of other groups?
Fahmi Reza, a Malaysian activist-artist, uses his radical artistic designs and graphics to educate the people of Malaysia about the state of democracy in the country. In gatherings and protests alike, Reza’s art plays its role as a medium of resistance by initiating the necessary questioning of political power and authority. However, Reza has been not only questioned by the police but also arrested on multiple occasions. Such censorship is dangerous as it enables the ruling party to steer narratives in a preferred direction by limiting the exploration of varying ideas and viewpoints, such as those of Reza and his followers.
Additionally, filtering art and expression gives viewers a false sense of security in the information they come across. If one does not know they are being censored, they may believe all that is fed to them. When viewers are exposed to only those forms of art and expression that align with their preconceived notions, existing beliefs may be strengthened, leading to a confirmation bias. Thus, institutions of power often censor ‘inconvenient art’ to create echo chambers that convince viewers that the information presented to them is complete and true.
One of the most worrying implications of censorship is the loss of authenticity of art. Though some researchers believe that censorship improves imagination and fosters innovation, it is important to realize that censored art is often diluted art. It is not purified or refined, but rather a diluted rendition of its original and authentic intent.
Positive implications of censorship
Censorship often carries negative connotations due to its rampant use by institutions of power as a tool to silence minority opinions. However, when used judiciously, it can have positive implications too. By carefully filtering content that the general public is exposed to, institutions of power can use their influence to preserve the dignity of cultural and religious groups. In many cases, it acknowledges cultural diversity and seeks to avoid unnecessary provocation and antagonization. Thus, it controls unlawful behaviour such as violence and profanity by preventing the dissemination of extremist ideologies and hate speech.
Another reason for censoring art is to protect vulnerable populations such as children and adolescents from its potentially negative effects. In 2021, a study on media effects revealed that even brief exposure to violent video games increases violence and aggression levels in children. Additionally, music containing sexually explicit lyrics has been shown to cause body-image-related issues in adolescent girls, while teaching adolescent boys to be sexually aggressive. Supporters of censorship, therefore, ask a valid question: Is it acceptable to risk the well-being of our youth for the preservation of artistic freedom of artists?
It has been argued that censorship creates ground for artistic innovation, with resilient censored communities formulating new and more acceptable ways to posit their artistic ideologies. Similarly, censorship has been used to balance the weight of absolute artistic freedom. It is through anticipation or fear of being censored that artists realize their power to influence audiences. Thus, the power of art may be further reiterated by censorship.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding art censorship is multifaceted, with valid arguments on both sides. Supporters of censorship believe that it is necessary to filter art to protect various populations and marginalized groups, while those opposed to it continue to uphold the power of artists to educate and inform the general public. In order to cater to the demands of both sides, it is necessary to have open and uninhibited conversations. A solution to this long-standing debate is to encourage contextual evaluation, which involves considering the historical, cultural, and social contexts within which art is created. Similarly, encouraging people to independently engage with art enables them to navigate potentially sensitive content with greater discernment. Such approaches not only protect viewers against any negative influences but also allow appreciation of unfiltered, authentic and original artistic ideas.
Masumi Pradhan
