In recent weeks, in response to the arrests of several artists for making "indecent" paintings in public, artists in India led a protest against the trend established by the countries conservative forces. The same article from the BBC detailing this also had a section where people could add their opinions. Many were in favor of the artists and freedom of expression. I would, however, like to draw your attention to some of the other comments on that page:

You can't make art out of bothering people, hurting their sentiments, stirring up nuisance, et al. Leading painter MF Hussain painted nude pictures of Indian deities but backed out when was asked to endorse the cartoons published by the European newspapers as freedom of speech or even as art. What kind of double standard is this? Let Hussain acknowledge the cartoons as form of art and fight for them as an act of freedom of speech and then table the matter of so called art which the so called artists are coming up with. It is insanity, not art to paint toilet seats with pictures of deity, whiskey bottles in the hands of Goddess Durga, nude pictures of deities, deities on shoes, etc. Such acts should be looked upon as a cognisable offence punishable by law. Such artists are only seeking cheap publicity.

I believe freedom of expression is only valid when you are not hurting any body feelings.

When artistic freedom is not balanced with an awareness of artistic responsibility which entails social, economic, cultural, and religious contextual sensitivity, one paves the way for licentiousness and artistic perversion masquerading as artistic freedom.

From hearing these responses, I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of people in the world who don't know the value of free expression. In fact, I would include most of the world in that count. And I believe that these quotes describe much of those people's opinions. Those opinions are wrong.

It is hard to explain the value of artistic freedom to one set in the taboos of his (or her) society. So let me start with this premise: the fallability of man. Namely, the part of the human psyche that tends towards myopy. We fear the unknown, so we seek to control it through understanding. After a time, we become so reliant on that understanding that we do not wish it to change. It would disrupt the foundation of our routine and life. It would impair our safety. That is clinging to ego.

Ego is defined often by the values imprinted upon us by our parents, our peers and our teachers. That is to say, it is a societal ego of how we see ourselves in relation to others. These values include visions of what is "good" and what is "right", and always what is good is rewarded with boons both real and imagined, and what is not "good" is punished. In mortal fear of the wrath of those hated beloveds, the human child adpots the guise of good. It is not nobility that motivates the human: it is literal fear of mortal injury.

But humans are not perfect. The societies we make our not perfect. And so our conceptions of "good" and "evil" are flawed. They more often serve to stifle the vitality of the individual than to cultivate it, and that is indeed their purpose. That is the point of view expressed by people who say "people can't do whatever they want" or "when artistic freedom is not balanced with ... contextual sensitivity, it paves the way for licentiousness and artistic perversion masquerading as artistic freedom." In fear of the maddening energies that permeate the cosmos and spring up inside of us, people lock up their libidos with "thou shalts" in the name of the Preservation of Society.

For the society is perfect. God is perfect. What He says is Law. We must all be good little babbits in the machine. The stray nail must be hammered down.

But if they are hammered down, it would serve to seal the coffin of the human spirit.

For that is how we truly live: in the moment between the future and the past, between the dawn and the dusk, in the glory of all things becoming. This is the greatest fear of those who cling to the social machine: the experience which transcends all the goods and evils we know—that terrible gale and fire of things yet to come. It is unpredictable, unsanctioned. Unsafe. But we cannot deny the void. It is always there, yawning, waiting to destroy the imparmenent order we've created for ourselves. If we cling to the corpses and the lore of ages past we only ensure our destruction along with it. But if we take courage, and take that small step forward, then we are saved as we are one with the making of the world.

So, let painters paint licentious pictures on brick walls! Let there be all which appals and offends—for nature provides much which appals and offends. To temper art with undue respect for the taboos and traditions of society is to castrate ourselves, both in mind and in spirit. Instead, we shall bring forth all that lies sleeping inside of us: all the beauty, all the horror, all the terrible force of our being. And let the shock of that terror wake the sleeper that lies in us all, so that we may no longer delude ourselves with the dull duties to gods of temperence, so we can make better all that is already good, so that we may live in that moment of creation and destruction that is life. For that is the true spirituality: contemplation of the mystery of things yet to be understood—a light in which no thing is taboo, and all lies in perfect honesty.