The extent to which society should impose limits on the ability of artists to express themselves is a debate which polarises opinion. The decision in 2013 by several UK universities to ban the pop song Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines from their student unions [Ref: BBC News] brought the issue into sharp relief, with supporters of the ban suggesting that the song was degrading to women, and contained “deeply sinister undertones” of misogyny and sexual violence, which some may not wish to hear [Ref: Huffington Post]. Others, though, were critical of the move, with one commentator suggesting that: “…if you look to pop music for moral guidance, you’re and idiot” [Ref: Telegraph].
The censorship of art also reflects political and religious concerns. Famously, The Satanic Verses, a novel by author Salman Rushdie, was deemed blasphemous to Islam, and throughout 1989 the book was banned by various countries around the world, and the author himself is still subject to ongoing death threats [Ref: Wikipedia]. To the present day, various artists such as Ai Wei Wei (who you’ll learn more about in upcoming Modules) continue to have their work censored and banned by authorities for either being subversive or for upsetting cultural or religious sensitivities [Ref: BBC News]. But critics of censorship argue that a fundamental aspect of free expression is allowing art that is: “…abhorrent, that shocks, disgusts, and causes offense” [Ref: Index on Censorship].
But how should we view this? Should artists have the right to shock and appall, or are there instances where their artistic license should be curtailed? Can some art be so offensive that banning or censoring is the right thing to do? Or should artistic expression always be allowed free reign, without any restriction? Discuss using examples from both Module 2 and from your own outside research. Be sure to cite your outside sources.
