ABSTRACT
Artists and art lovers have always been among the most frequent and fervent opponents of censorship, and a dominant theme in their support of freedom of expression is, of course, its crucial importance for art. Art’s quarrel with censorship seems as old as its ancient quarrel with philosophy; and ever since Plato’s proposal to ban mimetic art for its moral and epistemological evils, the champions of art have tried to protect art’s freedom and right to exist. Originally, art’s apologists tried to refute or extenuate the moral and epistemological censure of art by stressing its cathartic and didactic value. But as art’s status grew stronger, the claim was pressed for art’s complete autonomy and for total freedom of expression, which its creative nature allegedly requires. Romanticism decried anything that would restrain the imagination of aesthetic genius, and aestheticism deplored any outside interference in the free and pure pursuit of “art for art’s sake.” Even throughout the twentieth century, artists in both East and West have had to denounce and struggle with the censor. It is therefore generally accepted that censorship is not merely an ancient bogeyman of art’s infancy, but a principle which is fundamentally and quintessentially inimical and harmful to art, and antithetical to aesthetic autonomy.
