Ethics vs Art

Art, being a form of self-expression, is substantially subjective and therefore can incarnate itself in endless subject matters and mediums. However, it is precisely because of the freedom that this subjectivity can offer that ethics and morals can sometimes be surpassed through art. Looking at this argument from one perspective, it could be argued that ethical barriers should be imposed on art because artists may venture into subjects that are taboo. Touching upon these taboos, societal norms may be completely overlooked and therefore, go against public morals. To go further,  those morals and societal norms exist and were put in place for a reason— no special treatment should be given to art just based on the arguments that it is subjective and that art does not limit itself to the preferences of public opinion. Furthermore, when art portrays a taboo (particularly anything related to sexuality and self-harm), those topics might encourage the audience to think similarly to the perspective presented in the artwork. This is seen in the debate surrounding 'Thirteen Reasons Why', which arguably is encouraging suicidal teens to plan their suicide by giving them the idealized and romanticized idea that suicide is an effective vehicle for bringing positive change to their community. When controversial topics are explored in art, this may lead to more open conversation around the topic and hence normalize a taboo that goes against humanity itself (i.e suicide). Through normalization it could eventually be seen as acceptable to voice previously controversial ideas. This may lead to the anarchic deconstruction of societal norms and morals.

On the other side of the coin, however, it is argued that art should have no limits as controversial subject matters will lead to development in societal thinking and analytical understanding. Furthermore, (specially from social Marxists and postmodernists) it is argued that imposing barriers on art is just another form of governmental repression, which is further hindering a community's intellectual freedom and development. For the former argument, it is understandable because opening up the conversation of certain controversial topics will help the community have more empathy and flexibility when it comes to understanding others' perspective. This can be applicable, once more, to 'Thirteen Reasons Why' because the consequent proliferation of suicidal themes in television may lead to a better understanding and identification of when someone is suicidal, and thus, how they can be helped. As for the second argument previously presented, imposing ethical barriers on art could be seen as further government repression as it would precisely be them who would be imposing the aforesaid barriers. This would against the principle of self-expression, which according to numerous constitutions is a basic right of the citizen. By repressing the idea of freedom of expression, pivotal ideas that could have benefited societal thinking may never be produced. And whilst it could be concluded that art should have no limits, at the very least, artists should include an artist's intention before the audience is exposed to that art. This would shape the audience's thinking in such a way that they don't misinterpret the purpose the artist was seeking to fulfill, and hence, ensure art plays a beneficial role to society rather than a detrimental one.