Amber Zeng

Ms. Gardner
English 10 H / 4
5 May 2016
Drawing the Line on Arts Censorship
Art has been disallowed use of its power to change lives and perspectives; art has been
denied display of its embodiment of the artists heart and soul; art has been deprived of its
chance of evoking powerful emotions, whether that be good or bad; art is being erased. Art
censorship is the banning or denied display of any type of art because of offensiveness of its
contents. Classic literary works, such as Mark Twains The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,
are being banned because of offensive racial slur that weren't considered out of line the time
the work was created. Renowned artworks of the Renaissance age, such as Picassos Women
of Algiers, are slowly being eradicated from the public media because of its depictions of the
nude figure. This bowdlerization of influential work pieces directly violates not only the
Visual Arts Reformation Act (VARA), but also the First Amendments declaration of free
speech. Unless an artwork is explicitly unhealthy or graphic, such as pornography, or images
that might cause triggers or stokes, there should be no reason that piece of art should be
censor regardless of its form.
Art, as argued by many, should be censored if it is offensive to the viewer. For instance,
the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam had been in the process of removing and revising the titles of
around 220,000 historical works from its digital library. Those works all are being revise
because of the offense taking when not being referred as their actual names, such as calling
certain groups dwarfs or negro. Martine Gosselink, head of the history department at the
Rijksmuseum claimed that "The point is not to use names given by whites to others" (Siegal).
Literature is also being targeted as people continue their beliefs of censorship. One of the

most influential book in the last centuryHarper Lees To Kill a Mockingbirdis considered
the most challenged and banned classical book by the American Librarys Association
Office with notable challenges and bans spanning all the way back into 1977 (Downs). The
novel was banned for the mentioning rape along with the use of offensive racial slurs that
was, in the time the happenings of the book occurred, not too uncommon. In essence,
censorship has been based on an arbitrary scale of what is or isnt offensive to a portion of the
public, instead of factual evidence. While yes, censorship may be necessary to certain places
to keep equity such as schools or workplaces, yet outside of those bubbles of rectitude, art
should not longer be filtered and constrained by a capricious moral compass that is so
drastically different than the one artists had posed during the time that they have created their
masterpieces.
Undoubtedly some censorship should always exist to shield the public from explicitly
unhealthy images and articles; yet works create decades and centuries before, or replication of
past occurrences should not be evaluated under the same light. In 2014, Brett Baileys
Exhibit B was an eerie and depressing replication of the human zoos that existed in the
19th and 20th centuries. It was intended to accurately expresses the humiliation African
American exhibited in those time period. It is something that the younger generations such as
myself have never even thought to have existed. However, the extreme portray of racism was
not taken well by the public and was protested and threatened immensely until it was
forcefully cancelled. A Statement from the Barbican read We find it profoundly troubling
that such methods have been used to silence artists and performers and that audiences have
been denied the opportunity to see this important work (Frank) .The purpose of the
performance was to educate viewers of the harsh and extreme discrimination face by Afican
Americans in those centuries. By banning the project, the history was shielded from view.
Being uncomfortable with history is not means to change it, [Chris Sergel] said. People

need to figure out how to confront issues (Downs).

Furthermore, the use of censorship should not obstruct one's rights to free expression. In
the case of The Slants, an American-Asian band based Portland, when they first tried to
register and trademark their band name they were unsuccessful in their attempt. American
Civil Liberties Unions Lee Rowland and Samia Hossian report:
The government denied them a trademark based on the Lanham Act, a law that
allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to deny registration to
trademarks that it determines to be disparag[ing], or otherwise offensive or
immoral to a substantial composite of an affected group. (Rowland)
The PTO had denied the chance for The Slants to, as band member and founder Simon Shiao
Tam puts it, take on these stereotypes that people have about us, like the slanted eyes, and
own them; they had denied The Slants attempt to reappropriate the racial slur use against
their community(Rowland). According to this article, the government is ultimately refusing
to let a band stand up against racial slurs because of offensiveness of the slurs itself. A
problem cannot be solved if the problem itself is not acknowledged. Censorship has not only
forbidden us from revisiting the past, it is also halted us from moving forward.
Ultimately, Censorship should not be allow because it is based on a completely arbitrary
scale of what is or is not offensive. Over social media, Facebook users have been celebrating
the Facebook Nudity Day in Facebooks seemingly arbitrary nature of Facebooks nudity
policy (Brooks). On Instagram, Rupi Kaurs period photos, photos containing non-graphic
images based on women and their menstrual periods, was censored and taken offline while
pornographic image of women were easily found on Instagram simply by looking up the
hashtag girls (Brooks). Social media is bombarded with unreasonable bans and censor that

are seemingly based on entirely subjective standards. Svetlana Mintcheva from National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) writes:
While there are legal limits to the kind of speech protected by the First Amendment
including exclusions carved out for speech that directly incites violence, for
defamation, obscenity and a few other narrowly defined categories feeling
offended, no matter how deeply felt the offense, is not one of those categories.
(Mintcheva)
Simply being offended by a work does not mean that work shall be forced to be censored. We
have the right to keep our art public to the world, as long as it is under reasonable restriction
such as the refusal to display explicitly unhealthy images in public.
In conclusion, art should no longer be censored solely on the arbitrary scale of
offensiveness. In no way should there be a complete void of restriction, but rather, the debate
on whether an art piece shall or shall not be censor should be evaluated with the prospects of
history, freedom, and background in mind. Censorship takes away artists power to reveal the
truth of our society. It gives the government the sole power of drawing the line between right
and wrong.