There is a prevailing notion that artistic freedom should be preserved by authorities, even when works of art are regarded as contentious or insulting. From my perspective, I agree with the aforementioned statement to a large extent because of the necessity of creative expression as well as social progress.
The foremost argument to justify my stand is artistic freedom because creative expression is a basic human need that allows individuals to communicate ideas which cannot be shown through ordinary speech. This can be attributed to the fact that art has the capability to deal with complex and sensitive subjects such as war, identity, and inequality, which require symbolic and provocative forms of expression to be easily understood. It is particularly noticeable with some paintings, particularly Guernica painted by Pablo Picasso, depicting a war in a disturbing way, which was controversial at that era, but now it is considered one of the most meaningful and powerful anti-war statements in art history.
Furthermore, the other reason to prove my point is that preserving artistic freedom also fosters social progress. This can be explained by many social advances that were first demonstrated through art and literature before becoming mainstream and being highly appreciated. If a work may be censored for being offensive, Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird can exemplify this situation. This work of art has once been challenged and banned in various places for its frank description of racism; however, it later became well known in public for promoting justice.
To conclude the discussion, I wholeheartedly concur with this statement as freedom of art plays an indispensable role in expressing individual perceptions as well as fostering community progress.