Artist Choice: The Question of Self Censorship

Updated: Apr 11, 2022

Abstract

Many human rights art advocates are repeatedly censored, however, that does not stop them. I argue artists should be able to choose not to self-censor the human rights messages embedded in their art, in both environments where censorship is a large influence—China and Myanmar—and those where expression is fairly open—Korea. The artist takes on a leadership role using their art to initiate conversation and inform their audience of human rights violations for the betterment of the community and by no means intend to cause harm. An artist should be able to choose not to self-censor, for their actions will enable the free flow of information that may not be accessible otherwise. Furthermore, it is situations such as these that evoke changes and learning about societies’ truths. However, while not all artwork functions with educational intent, these works should also not intend to harm its audience.

Art is generally an interpretative form of communication where artists use it as a means of expressing and understanding the world. When creating works an artist takes in various considerations: the subject matter, composition, intentions, and consideration of the audience. Some artists will decide to engage in self-censorship as their fear stems from a consequentialist mindset. Others choose to find loopholes or, if they self-censored, are open to taking advantage of opportunities when it arises. Self-censorship works similarly to censorship as both obstructs a viewer from having opportunities to learn as well as inhibits the reflective component from being expressed.

Formal Introduction

Imagine you are an artist creating pieces in response to a recent or past human rights violation event. You recognize that this event touches upon difficult human rights violations topics for you and maybe others, but you believe you have important information about it that should be shared. You recognize that certain depictions or use of color you are using may result in negative responses and even censorship. You have thought carefully about your intentions; your sketchbook is filled with various compositions seeing what omitting different aspects will do for the piece. In the end, you strongly believe that the final unfiltered composition is the most effective. Your artwork gets approved by the gallery curators and is put on display. The audience’s response is both positive and negative. A few minutes later, the police come through the door telling you to remove the work and then say you need to change the color on another piece. The message intended for the piece to convey is diluted and leaves your audience misunderstanding. Soon after the censoring, you try again. This time, your previous experience lies in the back of your mind; you can try creating another educational and proactive piece, acknowledging the possibility of censorship and consequences, or you can choose to self-censor aspects of the piece not only diluting your message but risking greater misinterpretations.

Art in a public setting, like an exhibition or graffiti, is subject to public scrutiny, especially those that discuss human rights, difficult subjects, or go against the status quo. Sometimes as an audience member, you are not able to grasp the message being conveyed or even end up misinterpreting the work as well as the artist’s intentions. As a result, art is easily subjected to censorship. Typically, censorship is assumed to be done by external moral agents: a person(s) or group(s) for instance the government and community. Censorship is the suppression of expression or information by anybody, which can be directed towards a small aspect of the work or its entirety (Oltmann 2016). However, I am interested in exploring the self-censorship of the artist, thus, shifting the moral agent to the artists themselves.

Self-censorship is the “act of intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in the absence of formal obstacles” (Bar-Tal 2017). An artist may choose to omit aspects of their work as a result of considering the effects or consequences of choices in order to assess them (Blackburn 2003). Others may not even realize they are engaging in self-censorship or refer to it as something else (Phillips 2016). Regardless, it is something we, the audience, cannot see nor point out. In the context of art, if there is censorship, what does that mean for the message being received? Keep in mind that the message is relying on the individual’s interpretation. What if the message is about difficult art about an individual’s human rights or news about a current event?

Artist or not, censorship of freedom of speech and expression suppresses a part of one’s identity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) describes freedom of speech and expression as the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers (“Universal Declaration of Human Rights” 2015). Freedom of speech and expression within art needs to be protected because it sheds light on information and discussions that may never be known to the public. Furthermore, both play a crucial role in the development of culture, for art “does not merely represent the world but actually constructs our way of knowing it" (Turner and Webb 2016). According to the famous artist and human rights advocate, Ai Weiwei, this is “the most precious right, to be ourselves and to announce ourselves as individuals” (Ai and Cohen 2016). Art is just one method for artists to do so.

Should an artist self-censor? How does an artist choose whether or not to do so? Why would they choose to do so and at what expense? I argue that artists should be able to openly discuss human rights violations within their works. They should have the choice not to self-censor as a result of consequentialist fears from environments where censorship is a large influence—China and Myanmar—and those where expression is fairly open—Korea. Their art intends to inform and educate their audience of the human rights violations enabling the free flow of information that may not be accessible otherwise, not to cause harm.

In my paper, I intend to focus on artists from South Korea, China, and Myanmar as there are recent examples of art being used for human rights activism as well as exploration of culture. I will begin by looking at artwork presented in an exhibition or traditional setting of some sort. South Korea will help analyze the question of content and discuss difficult art in relations to human rights violations. Considering topics such as artist responsibility and information ethics with difficult art. Then, look at China and Myanmar where both are influenced and have a history of censorship and compare not only setting but specific artists and the decisions they make in regards to their art. I will look at external factors that are not necessarily in regards to an artist’s initial choice but how those factors are taken into consideration. Next, I will look at the why is the work censored in the first place and look at the roles of the artist and the censor. I will investigate the form in which the pieces are being presented to the audience. By this, I am referring to a traditional gallery exhibition versus non-traditional street art: murals and graffiti. What considerations must an artist think about in terms of form? Lastly, I will conclude with the overall function of art and its significance for freedom of expression and the free flow of information.

Brief Literature Review

For my paper, I will be engaging with art and art criticism as it relates to these disciplines: social science, political science, history, philosophy, and virtue ethics. I will be using consequentialism to explore the factors considered and how it influences the function of art and the role of the artist. I will use a variety of books, interviews, newspaper articles, and journals to examine the factors within the artist’s dilemma of self-censorship when engaging in art activism.

Self-censorship is difficult to see externally, so I have found interviews both stand-alone and within other journals to gain an insider perspective. There are interviews with Burmese artists collected by Carlson; an interview with Ai Weiwei as a part of the Fear of Art Conference (Ai and Cohen 2016); as well as a Korean Artist—Hong Sung-dam (Hong 2019). A frequent theme amongst the interviews has been the artists’ response to censorship. Many artists comment on the censorer having no art background and unable to understand the work. They also elaborate on how they go about their art afterward. The first person perspective will frame the situation and concerns regarding censorship.

Another method to understand self-censorship is through censorship. Looking at art from a sociological perspective; many argue the power of art and express a stance against censorship as it is an act of fear. The value of art is defined as its ability to educate and teach using an emotional appeal (AUMANN 2016). It can facilitate societal or communal discussions about a variety of topics (Oltmann 2016), as well as establish new ways of facing the human experience (Aladro-Vico, Jivkova-Semova, and Bailey 2018). Jacob Berger and Mark Alfano argue that the educational aspect of art is better posed in a negative model (Berger and Alfano 2016). The negative model demonstrates the consequences or bad aspects. However, while Anthony Aumann does not necessarily disagree about the impact of a negative model or difficult art, he considers the audiences’ autonomy to know or not know the truth presented in negative and difficult art. The works that target those who chose not to know need to be morally censored (AUMANN 2016).

I will use the virtue ethics presented in William Theodore De Bary’s Nobility and Civility: Asian Ideals of Leadership and the Common Good, to investigate the concept of leadership concerning virtue, learning, and education within human governance. He also looks at the responsibilities of those in power in creating and maintaining a civil society. De Bary focuses on leaders in a political sense, which can be applied when examining censors at work. Moreover, he argues that the virtues are universal, which provides another perspective into understanding the factors of which artists consider within their decision.

Engaging in history will help form a base understanding of the visual art culture and relationship between graffiti and art exhibitions. The book, Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art, provides a broad scope looking into the history, theoretical explanations, regional variations, and effects of graffiti. Unlike gallery exhibitions, graffiti is considered an illegal act in the sense that the owners of the surfaces being painted have not permitted the artist. However, graffiti is freely accessible and does not require admission. In one chapter, Stefano Bloch—a professor of cultural geography at the University of Arizona—challenges the defense of graffiti. He argues against legal walls and spaces for artists to practice as well as bring in the debate of graffiti as an art, which will be helpful for trying to understand if the form is a plausible factor.

Your Argument

Artwork that falls under politics and difficult discussions about human rights tend to be at the center of the dilemma of freedom of expression. The South Korean artist, Hong Sung-dam, presents a clear dilemma of information provided with art and censorship through his Sewol Ferry Disaster paintings. South Korea is a democracy that generally respects freedom of speech and expression. They have a policy known as the Criminal defamation laws, which focus on whether what was said or written was in the public interests but not necessarily confirming if it is factually true. These laws are known for affecting freedom of expression by deterring people from speaking out, particularly against leaders (“South Korea: Stop Using Criminal Defamation Laws” 2014). Hong Kal’s “The Art of Witnessing” notes that South Korea has “built on numerous civilian deaths that were unjust, concealed, and not even allowed to be mourned” and the Sewol Ferry Disaster is one example of this (Hong 2019).

Hong Sung-dam is a South Korean political artist who has created various controversial works in response to human rights violations. One series of paintings he created are in response to the Sewol Ferry Disaster on April 16, 2014. The ferry was along the southwest coast of South Korea when it capsized killing 304 passengers, many of which were only high school students. The cause of this disaster remains unanswered, but many speculate it was due to a combination of problems: safety violations, bureaucratic corruption, failed rescue operations, and unknown causes. The victims’ families advocated for an investigation and protested in hopes of answers. However, the government obstructed the investigation efforts, which resulted in negative media coverage, hostile atmospheres, and the remembrance of the disaster has been remembered as dangerous and associated with anti-governmental actions (Hong 2019).

Hong’s work grapples with moments of injustice and trauma through visual witnessing. Visual witnessing stems from ethical witnessing which is the concept that the viewer’s thoughts about social structures of injustice will transform as well as feel obligated to take responsibility for preventing future occurrences. His Sewol Ferry Disaster paintings bear witness to the violence imposed on victims’ bodies and the destruction of their humanity. Kal describes Hong’s works as “uncomfortable but affective images [that] are enacted as a reminder of the unjust deaths and facilitate dialogical relations between artist and the viewer, between the victim and the survivor, and between the living and the dead” (Hong 2019, 96). Within his painting, Hong depicts the last moments of their life: crying for help, hugging in panic, and struggling for life as they drowned. He takes on the role of being a witness and victim—from his trauma—and asks the audience to bear witness but also confront uncomfortable images. Not only does Hong believe the victim’s families should confront the tragic moments as a way to partially overcome their trauma but to further continue to fight for the truth. (Hong 2019, 98). His work is one example that falls under the category of difficult art.

The particular concern with difficult art lies within the individuals’ autonomy to choose whether or not they want to know the information. Aumann argues artwork that may be difficult to view needs to be morally censored to allow for viewer autonomy. While difficult art can have a powerful impact, difficult art can be more detrimental than it is beneficial (AUMANN 2016). For instance, the work can deter an individual from learning more about a topic and wish they had not encountered the piece in the first place. There are two instances where artwork targets those individuals. The first occurs on account of past trauma or inherent fragility where the people are not ready to face the facts. Secondly, when the art targets an audience who does not want to face the truth it conveys. Furthermore, an individual may not necessarily understand why it is uncomfortable or figure out they never wished to see it until after they saw it. Thus defeating the purpose of choosing not to know because they end up thinking about what they wanted to avoid in the first place (AUMANN 2016).

An artist may consider warning their audience, beforehand, already considering what they are touching upon is difficult. This idea, Aumann argues it can also do more harm than good. For instance, you are already dissuading individuals from attending and possibly—unexpectedly or expectedly—gaining and appreciating the experience after the fact. Also, your warning has the potential to compromise the aesthetic value of the artwork, for the audience’s surprise is an achievement but also potentially triggering a negative response. The artist also needs to consider their own autonomy as well.

Artist autonomy enables the artist to make their own decisions within their art. While autonomy is the freedom to act, that does not consist of doing whatever they want; the artist’s autonomy still acts within self-given laws as well as laws based on interchange between others (Zuidervaart 2015). Within art, in particular, artistic autonomy is an idea presented by Kant which he typically is associated with aesthetic decisions (Haskins 1989). One aesthetic decision which Hong is wrestling with is whether the public should be the witness to the uncensored art and receive the undiluted message attempting to be conveyed or should the work be more appropriate for public consumption (Likwong 2019). Nonetheless, it is difficult to account for every response from the audience. However, some argue that pressing the negative rather than the positive is a better method for education purposes (Berger and Alfano 2016). So, how does one prioritize the ‘wow’ factor as well as their audience’s autonomy?

When analyzing Hong’s artwork, he prioritizes the ‘wow’ factor and artistic autonomy for it is essential for the message he desires to convey. Undoubtedly, he is touching upon a difficult subject—death and trauma concerning human rights violations—and one can argue that he is using his artwork to target victim’s families who are not yet ready to face the truth. For instance, some of the victim’s family members found the works “too ‘strong’ and distressing”, which was only retraumatizing. Furthermore, one parent touches on the artist’s position. They comment, “ [Hong] is a victim of violence, but he survived. He can’t understand us...I feel like our poor children have been used. The exhibition is for the artist himself” (Hong 2019, 110). Hong was not directly associated with the Sewol disaster, but he experienced his trauma when he was a witness to the Gwangju Massacre—a bloody civilian massacre when a new authoritarian government took power. The victim’s parent’s comment brings into consideration the idea of should an artist be able to create works that the artist is not directly tied to? According to the freedom of speech and expression clause within the UDHR, yes, Hong should be able to create that content for he is utilizing that right. However, it is not an inherent right, and taking into account Aumman’s argument, this work should have been morally censored. But it was not, why?

Hong looks at the situation from a consequentialist perspective and by doing so, he focuses particularly on what the media and government failed to do: allow the audience to form an emotional connection and provide substantial information regarding the disaster, but most importantly, spread awareness. The widespread and repeated showing of images from the media and government limited the individual’s formation of a relationship with the event. The media also presented distorted, unclear, and fake information (Hong 2019, 101). Additionally, some believed that the awareness of the tragedy was disappearing from the public consciousness. So this special public event was fundraised and organized by a group of volunteers, who believed in its importance. Considering that, Hong explores the role of visual images to express violence, loss, and trauma which would have remained silenced and unseen. If Hong chose to self-censor, would he not be doing the same as the media and government? In an interview, Hong argues an artist should be no different than a rabbit in a submarine. An artist should “perceive abnormalities in their surroundings” and alert the public to the dangers (Herald 2015). The artist role is suggested to be taking the lead role in alerting and informing the audience. However, not all cases are presented as clearly as Hong Sung-dam and there are other considerations to be taken into account.

Artists showing their works in an exhibition had additional factors to consider such as who they are collaborating with and the effects of their decisions. In China and Myanmar, an artist’s self-censorship is easier to see through events of censorship. First, let’s look at China. China is a stable authoritarian country. Its visual arts have been greatly focused on propaganda. Chinese propaganda uses iconic imagery that focuses on the adoration of revolutionary leaders, and modernization for pushing the national interest (Carlson 2016). As noted by Ai Weiwei, self-expression and the media are always being controlled in order to maintain a stable society; a societal emphasis on the communist struggle (Ai and Cohen 2016). Anything that calls itself creative or independent is considered a pretense, especially in a society that restricts individual freedoms and violates human rights (Henders et al. 2014)

Censorship is prominent in China, so self-censorship becomes a means of survival for some and that affects not only the artist but the art community. Ai Weiwei is a Beijing contemporary artist and human rights activist. Within his works, he focuses on social practice in an attempt to bring out the social consciousness in relation to topics of social justice: individuality, personal freedom, and freedom of expression (Ai and Cohen 2016). Ai is known for actively speaking out against the Chinese government, so much so his name cannot appear on social media or the internet. Ai Weiwei has been silenced by the secret police various times. In addition, Ai Weiwei’s practice, contacts, and communications are under surveillance by the secret police (Ai and Cohen 2016). It was as if he did not exist in society.

Ai Weiwei is a co-founder of the China Art Archives and Warehouse Foundation which is one the first contemporary art galleries meant to promote young artists. However, for one showing event where he planned on showing three of his works to commemorate a fellow friend, Ai Weiwei was not invited. Furthermore, when he saw the invitation, his name self-censored by the foundation and completely removed from the list of artists. However, this was not the police’s doing, but the foundation; the foundation diminished Ai Weiwei’s identity down to being only a somebody. Ai Weiwei was surprised by this self-censorship but he decided to take down all his artwork. Although this self-censorship was not initiated by Ai himself, his choice corresponds to the foundation’s act of self-censorship. The foundation’s choice prioritized their survival by staying out of the eyes of the Chinese government, who not only enforce censorship but also are looking out to silence any mention of Ai Weiwei. Ai Weiwei’s choice to self-censor here takes into account the foundation’s decision, despite this being done without notice, Ai Weiwei’s choice prioritizes his relationship with the foundation as well as the foundation’s concerns (Rao 2017). In situations such as these, considerations are not done solely by the artist, but by the gallery and curators who are collaborating with the artist. They not only need to think about their own values and intentions, but also the public. However, for Ai Weiwei, creating proactive art about human rights issues and other topics, in general, remains his lifelong career. His human rights related art remains essential information to convey to the public despite many encounters with censorship.

Similarly, the government in Myanmar plays a large role in art censorship, but their artists are ready to find other ways around censorship. Myanmar’s art has been shaped by its history of censorship. Myanmar, which is formerly known as Burma until 1989, is a war-torn country. The Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) held significantly strict cultural restrictions which resulted in limited opportunities for internal dissent and specific portrayal within the visual arts. The restrictions were meant to protect Myanmar’s culture and preserve national identity as agrarian, Burman, and Buddhist (Carlson 2016, 121). Censorship of art within Myanmar focused on the restriction of information and the exchange of ideas. However, there were no official guidelines for censorship; the vague idea was that it focused on political expression, color, abstractions, and issues of morality. Nudism was the only official rule because it was against tradition (Carlson 2016). Buddhist imagery was also a sensitive subject to depict within art. By 2011, Myanmar shifted to a semi-civilian government giving new hope to freedom of expression, but some restrictions like nudity remained the same (Carlson 2016).

Myanmar artists create and use their artistic expression as a form of activism. The government before 2011, prevented artists from expressing themselves that they had so much pent up energy to create and express themselves in ways they could not. Before shifting to a semi-civilian government, the censorship board censored everything. In many cases, the censor would deface artworks with stamps, remove artwork and arrest the artist without question (Carlson 2016). Similar to Ai Weiwei’s experience, the Myanmar artists also attest to the censors not understanding the artists (Carlson 2016). As a matter of fact, some would censor work to demonstrate to the Censorship Board that they were doing their job. There was only one person on the Censorship Board who had an art background but in dance or acting, not necessarily the fine arts. Htein Lin recalls the Censorship Board changing aspects of their painting; a painting with footprints was described as offensive and not respectable to the viewers, in addition, called the red paint ‘blood’ and asked Lin to change the blood to orange (Carlson 2016). Another artist, San Minn, had work banned solely for its title and not even the content (Carlson 2016). In both of these cases, censorship is irregular and vague and as a result, this ambiguity fostered habits to self-censor for some. Some artists found this encouraging alternative means of avoiding censorship. For instance, artists provide a false definition in order to get the censors to accept the work (Carlson 2016). An artist being called out or associated with political activism was a fear and a large concern. For Nann Nann, she begged and cried in hopes to stop a journalist from publishing a journal article associating Nann’s work with political activism. Her fear stemmed from the consequences if the government received the news; Nann Nann will be forced to seek asylum outside of Myanmar. In regards to many other artists, this is a major concern, for some creating art is one’s financial support and their entire career. Moreover, the consequences can interfere with future collaborations, access, and funding. It is important to take into account why these works are censored

Censorship of art occurs as a result of the censor’s ignorance and representative of the communities’ fear of art. The general argument for censorship is that it is done for the good of people; the censor is a moral guardian or a leader. However, as seen within the instances with Ai Weiwei and Myanmar artists, that is not exactly the case. Within the Fear of Art conference, Ai Weiwei argues that “[the Chinese] doesn’t understand art. They only understand a kind of propaganda, a kind of art that carries a very purified or single message” (Ai and Cohen 2016). As a matter of fact, that is not only Ai Weiwei’s argument but, with slight differences, are other artists as well. Looking back at Hong Sung-dam’s work, he was censored because he presented criticism of the South Korean Government. While Myanmar artists’ works were censored based on arbitrary reasons such as color use, depictions, and nudity. Distinct aspects censored are more evident in works discussing human rights violations, for it is suggesting the “fear” lies within the evocative power, meaningfulness, the aspirational and inspirational impacts of art that it has on people (Gund 2016). The fear also lies in their inability to understand and as a result to assure no unwanted information is out they will censor to the point that one might not even censor based on the content, rather they censor based on association with the individual. Therefore, further deterring the artist’s expression of identity and diluting the messages. While on one hand, this may compel artists to continue to make works, others may see action as off-putting. They believe that the information they have acquired has negative implications especially if consequences are being taken into account: arrest or changes with an individual’s lifestyle and career (Bar-Tal 2017).

Moreover, censors fear that the message an artist conveys through their art contradicts the values of the society and there is a need to protect national identity. In Human Rights and the Arts: Perspectives on Global Asia, Liu Xiaobo—a writer and human rights activist—accuses the [Chinese] government to be “using cultural differences, or ‘Asian values,’ and the invocation of a Neo-Confucianism, to justify and legitimize authoritarianism” and reject criticisms of human rights on the grounds of supposed difference in national traditions” (Henders et al. 2014). What Liu is bringing attention to is the idea that proactive art does not function in the interest of the community and holds different Asian values. While Liu is specifically referring to the Chinese government, the notion can be applied to various other governments and communities as well. However, the artists’ values under discussion are no different from the communities’.

While the censors are seen as a leader, the artist is one too; their values and intentions are in consideration for the good of the people. De Bary’s book, Nobility and Civility, offers insight into what aspects make a leader. The very nature of leadership encompasses learning, virtue, and education in human governance (De Bary and De Bary 2004). A leader emulates family values: treats the community as if they were their children, and responsible for speaking out on behalf of community welfare (De Bary and De Bary 2004). However, before even beginning to focus on the good of the people, a leader must also work on themselves as an individual, which ties the idea of Neo-Confucianism. Its philosophy “stress[es] on individual duty and responsibility, starting with self-understanding and self-cultivation but immediately engaging with others, at first in the family and eventually the community, the state, and humankind at large” (127). The artist is educated about human rights issues or if they are not, they research and explore their understanding through their art. Before work is shared widely with the community, it is a practice that begins with the artist. Then, slowly the sharing circle of art expands to family and outward, however, degrees of transmission vary. In the process, the artist allows their audience to become knowledgeable of the information which they have already learned and reflected on.

For example, Ai Weiwei’s art career began in Beijing, and over time became popularized and attracted international attention. However, within each piece, Ai Weiwei’s intentions within art are to tell his son and the younger generation who he is, the kind of life he has been through, in addition to “why freedom of expression is so precious” (Ai and Cohen 2016). Ai Weiwei not only expresses his stance on human rights issues with intentions to communicate his own identity to the public but has the parental characteristics of a leader as he is also thinking about the younger generation. Whereas Ai Weiwei is only one artist, I do not want to exclude the fact that other artists’ intentions and perspectives within their work can differ. Just as art is subjected to the audiences’ many interpretations, the artist conveying the information has a subjective standpoint as well. Nevertheless, embedded within the artist’s artistic expression is the importance of an individual’s right to information. As a leader, the artist is encouraging and assisting their viewers in seeing the world in which they live.

So far we have seen examples of artists presenting their works in an exhibition—a formal setting. But the visual art culture continues to undergo dynamic transformations, which includes taking on non-traditional forms as well. Thus, another consideration an artist takes into account is the form of art.

The form of art does not change the artists’ decision to self-censor even if the other form is graffiti, a non-traditional form of art that is greatly debated—urban art. For a long time, there have been questions of whether or not graffiti is an art because of its association with vandalism. While graffiti is not as prominent in South Korea, China, and Myanmar as compared to the West, it is gradually gaining traction as well as it being gradually accepted as an art. Graffiti itself is a term associated with writing and murals are associated with street art; however, to take into account both of these aspects, I will use the term street art to encompass both styles.

The core of the debate lies within its illegal aspect, but it is important to recognize that not all street art is illegal. Some urban areas are beginning to legalize places for street artists to practice their art. Stefan, a professor of cultural geography, argues that taking the illegal quality out of street art takes away its autonomy. Traditionally, graffiti has been used to claim a territory, gain personal fame, and challenge authority. Its illegibility, out of place, and monochromatic characteristics are critically compared to the aesthetic and beauty of traditional art. One might think the illegal and contrasting aspects are enough incentive to produce proactive and dissent works to a greater extent, however, in one graffiti artist’s opinion that is not the case (Ross 2016) Street artists argue against advocating for greater tolerance and education surrounding street art. Illegal or not, street art enables the artist to express themselves as well as contribute to the development of culture within the community.

A larger difference between graffiti and exhibitions occurs with accessibility and legibility. Street art does not come with an artist statement, like what is typically provided in an exhibition, to assist a viewer's understanding of the work. Yet, its placement in the general public, makes the work available to a greater range of individuals until it is censored or disappears. Street art contributes to defining the cultural expression within the community (Ross 2016). Those street artists that also use their practice for human rights issues and activism fall under the idea of artivism, which is art activism emphasized through the use of urban art. Artivism is a current language of independence and freedom. It is “a fundamental educational form, in addition to a language and way of communicating and expressing autonomy, dissidence and opposition” (Aladro-Vico, Jivkova-Semova, and Bailey 2018). What is more, it integrates the individual in the symbolic construction of reality and the construction of collective spaces and context; generates in people’s language to express themselves, becoming emitters, and not just recipients of messages; and brings in culture as a necessary food for human socialization. (Aladro-Vico, Jivkova-Semova, and Bailey 2018). In short, street art, like traditional forms, carries similar means in its intentions.

Nevertheless, street art is just another way for artists to express and inform the public. Quite recently three Myanmar artists created a mural (street art) in a response to the current Coronavirus pandemic. While the artists themselves were intending to spread awareness, the government censored the work for a different reason. Within the mural, the artists depicted a grim reaper, but from the government’s interpretation, it looked like a Buddhist monk and was censored as “insults to religion”. As argued by the deputy Asian director, Phil Robertson, the wrong issue is being brought to people’s attention; the government should be doing more to educate the populace about the coronavirus crisis (“Human Rights Watch: Myanmar - 3 Charged for COVID-19 Street Art - Research Library - ProQuest” 2020). The three artists are using their art to take initiative to inform their community, while the government is failing to do so. Moreover, the Myanmar government is implementing restrictions on freedom of expression to discuss these current issues. Concerns which these three artists saw were the free flow of information and spreading awareness.

The overall intention of the art is to express one’s identity, art is a tool for spreading awareness, educating, and learning about human rights violations which may not be knowledge available to the public. Not only does art challenge social attitudes but also complicit to it; it has the capability of finding new ways of thinking but also offending the held beliefs. Furthermore, while not all art is meant for educational discussions about human rights violations, art is essential for the expression of culture and identity. The variety of artists allow “art, in its extraordinary variability, [to be] remarkably effective at capturing plurality and engaging a range of possible ways of seeing and being" (Turner and Webb 2016, 148). The artist who is sharing the works is above all else an individual who shares with all other persons common humanity (Berleant 1978). The integrity of the art originates from the ability to adhere to the intentions of the art—to reveal and shape reality (Berleant 1978). If an artist chooses to self-censor their work that communicates on human rights violation issues, not only are they inhibiting their audience’s competence but are contributing to moral deterioration which can ultimately impact the community and governance. Furthermore, a diluted message compared to its original form will obstruct the transmission of information and art’s social communication aspect. Social communication is the idea that art can communicate morally significant content across barriers: class and educational (Haskins 1989). This decision can also have individual consequences as well. The artist, as they are in a position of leadership, can feel guilt or shame for withholding information that could have been intended for the betterment of the people and community.

Conclusion

An artist's decision to self-censor is quite difficult to observe externally without information provided by the artist themselves. But when the art is used to touch upon human rights violations, the artists from South Korea, China, and Myanmar all display unity in their choices. They do not want to self-censor. The South Korean artist, Hong Sung-dam, Chinese artist, Ai Weiwei, and the three Myanmar artists use their art to share information about these issues despite the risk of censorship and consequences—ie. harassment. However, it is important to keep in mind that both Ai Weiwei and Hong Sung-dam have various prior experiences with censorship and art activism as they have been engaging in and advocating for human rights and freedom of expression throughout their career. Their experience assists with their own current decisions to continue to push for freedom of expression, especially on difficult human rights topics. The artist is a leader that prioritizes education and knowledge in the hope to teach the younger generation or to remind them of information that pertains to the community and their wellbeing.

Those artists who have less experience are seen to be affected by the environment of their country as it feeds the art communities’ consequentialist mindset. For instance, we have seen the self-censoring of Ai Weiwei’s foundation, as well as, Myanmar artist, Nann Nann, pleading to a journalist not to associate her work with political activism within their journal article. For any artist whose art career is their life and surviving long term, self-censorship is a safe route. It enables the artist or group to continue business even though there will be limitations of the individual’s stance and identity.

When delivering difficult human rights content, the audience can interpret those actions in positive and negative ways, as demonstrated within Hon-Sung-dam’s work. Therefore an artist should not solely rely on the audience, but never forget to consider them as a factor, especially when taking on the role of a leader. Unlike the censors these artists are focused on their intentions and role as a leader, some engaging a lot more with the audience while others in the self-cultivation phases. Overall the focus on freedom of expression within the art allows for the free flow of information to reach their audience and even spread worldwide in some cases. As a result, the artist enables their audience to attain the knowledge the artist has initially been learning, understanding, and reflecting on their own. Consequently, this potentially sparks conversations and initiates reflection for not only the artist but their audience. At the same time, it enables the culture of each environment to be expressed as artists explore various subject matters, perspectives, and mediums.

While on one hand censorship can be harmful to the spread of information, it does not necessarily inhibit the spread of information completely. Especially nowadays, since social media, the internet and other platforms are a large means of communication to hear about instances of censorship. Additionally, one can argue that censorship adheres to the value of art in the sense that it has elicit such a response from the audience. However, prioritizing the value of art over the message it is attempting to convey affects the artist’s reputation rather than concerning the audience.

Additionally, something else to consider is what if the artwork itself was considered the moral agent instead of the artist. Although art itself does not have the same cognitive as a person, it is acting upon the viewer (“Ethical Autonomism: The Work of Art as a Moral Agent” n.d.).

(Page Count: 21)