Should Art Have Boundries?

     I agree with this article. Art I think is a great way to escape your family problems or problems in general or stress. I use art as a entertainment item but other people might use it to express their feelings toward others. I do not think it is fair that some schools do not allow art as a class/club. Some schools allow art but as a club or for fun but others have no art at all. I like to think art as a stress reliever, some therapist recommmend as a problem solver, to write in a journal or type in your computer to relieve your deep feelings but to me art is my way to calm down and relax. Art should be promitted in every school, even if it is not a class. Art has been around for a pretty long time and I don't understand why they would get rid of it. I would understand if they get rid of art for economic reasons but other than that I would consider getting rid of art unfair. 

I agree completely. I never understood why people felt the need to put limitations on art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but if you don't like something, you shouldn't make it other people's business or problem. Simply let it go, and move on! Art is a great release, and escape from the world sometimes, and everyone has their own way of doing it. And that should be ok... Just let it happen

This article brings up interesting points, and I agree with your point of view, Charlie. Art is, by it's very definition, the most free form of self-expression. Any limitation put on the expression of art for any moral purposes is not valid. Everyone should have the freedom to express themselves in any form they choose, this is even guaranteed in in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who doesn't like something can simply ignore it; there is no need for them to try to stifle it completely.

I, however, must agree with the previous commenter when they mention the economic issue. I think that the movements you mention that are aiming to cut money for the National Endowment of the Arts do not do it because of moral objection to the expression of art. They are just trying to come up with solutions to getting this country out of our economic crisis. Lately everybody has been having to sacrifice. But other than this, i agree. Art is a basic freedom of expression, and should be protected as such.

I agree with you. Art is very important and it's value is slowly being drained. At my old school, hardly any money was put towards any of the art programs. Art is very important to our society, and we need to continue to show people how important it is.

There should not be limitations on art. Art is all about exceeding the boundaries. A few years ago here at Judge there was controversey over our school performing "Rent." Our principal took a lot of heat from the community about allowing the students to put on a show with so many thematic and controversial elements. I think that placing boundaries on artistic expression is censorship and should not be permitted.

There is a quote from Mark Twain saying, "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it." Conservative groups such as the one criticizing Bingham High's production of Dead Man Walking want just that- to censor the youth and keep from us the escape and freedom that such artistic expression allows.

I 100% agree with your post. Art is awesome (and I'm not just saying this because I create art) and the world would be unintelligent and boring without it. You cannot restrict art, it's like trying to restrict nature. Art is human nature, because we naturally have creative juices that flow and are released through painting, drawing, dancing, acting, composing, writing, etc. Judge Memorial has always been in the controversial spot light because their art and theatre department are not afraid to push boundaries, make a statement, and be creative. You mentioned that Bingham High School was criticized for performing "Dead Man Walking," and this year Judge Memorial is performing "Sweeney Todd" at the UTA theatre performance at Westminster along with several other Utah high schools, except for one that declined because "Sweeney Todd" is too violent. Point blank, people need to calm down and get their undies out of a knot.

Hello Charlie!

I am in much agreement with what you are saying because I think art should be universally enjoyed and the fact that people are moved by something (whether in a good or bad way) is HUMAN. Sometimes, if people don't want to see something inappropriate they should just not go and see the show. Actors need to expand their acting skillzzZzzZ and I WILL FINISH THIS COMMENT LATER I PROMI ....

I agree with everything that you're saying. The purpose of art is to be able to express yourself without censorship, judgement or criticism. I think that censoring songs on the radio, for instance, is a really common way that society puts limits on art. Musicians put as much of their emotion and heart into their music as painters do to their paintings. I think it is offensive to the artist to have the radio censor out words. I believe art should be approached with an "all or nothing" attitude. If you appreciate and understand it, great. But if you don't, then don't manipulate something you didn't create just because you don't like some parts of it. Limiting it to what you want is offensive to the artist.

I agree with you. Art whould not be art without creativity. Art should be a way to escape; find an oasis when things are rough. Art is a way to express yourself. Some of the most famous and expensive are those with "explict" content. The point of school is to help you succeed in life, so what if you become the next "William de Kooning" (he sold a painting of a nude women for 137.5 million dollars)or "Picaso". Plays hold the same principals as well. Art also shows our history and ways of life too. They show our thoughts and ideas. Pictures are like a universal languge. This school should be ashamed for limiting the mind.

I just finished reading your article and i agree that art should not have boundries. I myself know that art is a great way to express yourself. When your having family problems or stress it is a great way to relax and express yourself. Why would catholic schools put a boundry on art if there is art all around them maybe not normal art but religous art. That is very detailed and intricate so why should other art have boundries.

Art has contributed a major amount to society and shouldnt be limited. Art is a career and if you stop people from working on it. Art will start to fade and there wont be as many artists as there are today. People have made so much in their life through art and if you dont let them express themselves their art wont be as fantastic as it would be without boundries. Art shouldnt have limits the most famous artists in history didnt have boundries so why should we

I agree 100%. I think that there should be no limit on art. People use art as a way to express themselves and if there are restrictions on it would effect them in a negative way. Some people are going through hard times and they use art as a way to take their minds off somethings. Art has been around since the beginning of the world and it shouldn't change now. People should be aloud to do what they want with art as long as it dosent hurt people. Art shouldn't have boundries. Ever.

I agree with you on this. Art is meant as a way to express yourself. Limiting arts is like putting boundries around what we can or can't do. How do you expect people to express themselves when there are limits on what we can or can't say in art? There are so many teens who use art as an outlet and taking away how they can do that would be like taking away our oxygen. If teens have no outlet then they would all bottle it up. I'm pretty sure no one would want that for them. When people turn to art they have a purpose of what they want to say when they paint. In my point of view, art is my way to get away from whatever I may be dealing with at the moment and i'm sure a lot of other teens would agree with me. The list of reasons on how the arts help people can go on and on for hours. In my opinion, taking away the arts would be a huge mistake. Art with boundries is meaningless. 

The arts is a very controversal topic, arguing over appropiatiness or even who is in the play. This article brings up a good point about how preforming arts creates making problems. The problems that are brought up here aren't bad for the actors or the school, but for the audience. The audience makes a decision instantly about how they think the preformance is going to be. They base these judgements on who is in the play and what the play is about. In the summer season of Degrassi they showing a play that most religious people didn't agree with, not getting the support that was needed to produce a play. The towns folk found the idea very offensive; leading up to the season finally the director stayed stong and produced the play without the support of most people. My point is that as long as the director or the staff of the play support what they are doing the audience will sooner or later appriciate it. The school board always has the final decision, especially when it is a Catholic or private school. The play cannot go against the beliefs or rules of the school. In a public school there are totally different rules, in high school some students decide to produce their own play as extra credit or to work for a scholarships. That means that the plays decision is up to the student, but the principal or the drama teacher gets the final decision. If the process goes like this there should be no problem with inappropiatiness or any views that people don't appriciate. 

Art is used by so many different people on so many different ways. Putting limits on art is like putting limits on what people can and can not say, both are not right. If people want family friendly art then go look at family friendly art. No one is forcing them to look at non- family friendly art.
Art is an expression of oneself. If they choose to express themselves of gothic or unfriendly manner, so be it.

I loved when you talked about how if you put limits on art then we lose meaning of what the purpose of art is. I really like this post and they way it is written. Well done.

Well i agree with Steven Berkoff . you cant put a "limit" to art , its art . art is what defines the way of life and the way we live . Its a way of showing our emotions , curiosity , our true colors . with out art we all be unimaginative , and realistic and that bothers me as a person because , what if you have a daughter , she might have some disease that cant be cured what are you supposed to tell her . your going to die have no hope , at least ART plays a role in life . i think people who put "limits" in art are stupid . and its ridiculous if you agree with them and there "limits".