Instead of creating controversy in regards to artistic creativity, viewers should consent to the proposition of conversation, explanation, introspection, and community integration as an alternative to censorship. If expression and conservative views are equally allowed as freedoms, neither should be able to downplay the survival of the other. Religion may preach and teach the maximum to belittle the importance, containment, as well as the title of art. Art may always challenge society, as well as the church. However, art and religion should never abuse and use their differently-favored political stance as an impolite advantage. Censoring art is, synonymously, attesting to its ability to drape meaningful-based fear over the public (Freedberg). Art censorship exclusively assigns art with more power; censorship overrules disparaging the meaning of the art. Art succeeds as a mirrored-version of an individuals’ panorama and experiences in life (“What”). Not everyone has the same sense or form of creativity, art is a variation of our worldly perception that is not necessarily intended to amuse every inclusion of humanity, if entertaining any at …show more content…
Whilst living out all dimensions of Earth, you could potentially approach masterpieces. Perchance you see a pile of what appears to be the scraped-up remains of a frat party, it heaped to the height of the average human, and mounded next to it a title-tag with an artist name. You may question the mass’ ability to be categorized as art; does all artistic creativity profess and illustrate that which was revived within the Renaissance period of the 14th, 16th, and 17th centuries? Does all art undeniably compare to that of Van Gogh, Claude Monet, Chuck Close, Salvador Dali, Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Michelangelo? Pablo Picasso once said “The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our