'Performing arts Essay\r'

' fraud, culture, and confederation; these three elements be closely linked. These three elements affect one different in one way or a nonher. thither is often a combat of interest between the impostureist, the audience, and the organisation body. The contrivanceist’s aim is to announce contrivance freely. The audience’s aim is to emplacement wile in pretends that are non nauseated to them. The government’s aim is to mitigate the conflict of interest between the two p blindies by implementing policies and fixions to contrivance pieces that are produced and viewed.\r\nControversy is an issue to assume into rumination by the government when funding wile and criminalize art. This is due to art pieces being widely reached with the advances of technology. Audiences of art are thus easily well-disposed to art that could influence or offend. However, art is innately challenging and often provocative. Creativity would be stifle if the government funded wholly art so quiet that it offended no one. Creativity would alike be stifled if the government creates censorship to limit art that challenges the strongly held beliefs of the auberge.\r\nThese concerns raise a few questions to wile in the society. Firstly, how much controlion should the government restrict the type of art forms that could have an adverse nucleus on the society? Or rather what limitations on censorship and funding should be made for the pastime of artist re measure, or more broadly immunity of bearion? Secondly, should it be the responsibility for the artist to take into consideration the effect on the viewer when creating art pieces that may seem controversial to others? In capital of capital of Singapore, Art is increasingly promoted.\r\nThe promotion of Art in Singapore slew be seen from the provision of liberal arts invention that provides full time programmes for the performing arts, the implementation of the annual Singapore Art Festiv al which provides a curriculum for artist to express their talent and for the community to cherish and to understand Art better, and the funding from the government to arts companies, the opening of the Art Science Museum in February 2012, and so on Although Art is increasingly promoted in Singapore, tasty granting immunity is being under assaulted.\r\nFreedom is threatened by pressures from the government. The society only accepts art that is amic qualifiedly welcome; one that does not break the law and does not offend any individual. The recent works of a student of an art institution in Singapore is one example that provides evidence for exemption of fine expression being restricted. The artist printed stickers with captions and pasted them on a pavement and on road craft signs an act of a guerrilla art scene. She also painted â€Å"My Grandfather Road. ” along certain roads in Singapore.\r\nWhile her works portrays certain revalue of the Singaporean Culture, wh ere singlish and certain forms of lingos are being utilize in her stickers and paintings, they are then being deemed by the law as vandalism. This specific act of art creation has roared a debate among netizens in Singapore, with many another(prenominal) fighting for liberty for creative expression, while the others stating that what she did was further seeking attention, vandalism, or creating art of no value. In 1994, a performing artist was fined for committing an hideous act.\r\nIn his performance, he snipped his pubic hair before a small audience as a exemplary protest against police entrapment of gays, punishment by flogging, lock outside(a) sentences for â€Å"victimless” crimes, and news media exposure of those convicted. He was also disallow from future public performances. While the artist did this for the bang of art and in the interest of expanding the general anticipation of art in Singapore, The National Arts Council mark the acts â€Å" complete( a)” and â€Å"extremely distasteful.\r\nIf the government funds and allows only art that is has no controversial value, then wouldn’t creativity be buried in our society? Also, if art works is created to conform to the average of the society, is art still art? Art is a form of freedom, expression, creativity, and life. However, from the above two examples, it bunghole be seen that there is a constraint place on freedom of artistic expression and the value of art. Artists can express art only with lawful restrictions.\r\nArtists who are bodacious enough to oppose to such norms are each being punish, or their art works are being restricted from the audience. The rest restricts their work to those that conforms to the societal norms. With these restrictions, art can never be show in its original form; audience can never be exposed to many shiny art works which may be vulgar to some but artistic to others. By correspond restriction of art works that lack redeem s ocial values, we will be exposed to only art that conforms.\r\nThis would realise depreciation in the value of art in our society. Despite the fact that art should be freely expressed to preserve its value of creativity, it is classic to take into consideration what effect some art works may have on our society. It can be seen that the two artists go against heathen norms to showcase art works that breaks away from the norm and set themselves different from others. By breaking away from the ethnical norm, viewers with his or her set of cultural values may be offended.\r\nHowever, by silencing art pieces that the majority considers offensive, we may be oppressing the minority and preventing the society from learning the message that the artist conveys. Thus it is important for an artist to recognize how far he or she should go in order to create art works that do not offend some individuals. It is widely believed that Singapore, being a Cosmopolitan city, has to be very careful wh en expressing our thoughts on sensitive issues. In our society, censorship is necessary to protect its community from artistic content that lack redeeming social values.\r\nIt can be argued that artistic content that oppose social values should be restricted. It is stated by our diplomatic minister that artists can express themselves through many other areas without crossing any red tape. This shows that total freedom of artistic expression is indeed not deport in our society. In conclusion, while artists should be able freely express as much as possible, it is only fair for them to consider whether their work would cause harms to others. In both examples, from the artists’ point of view, they are merely creating art freely and creatively.\r\nYet their works did not take into consideration the effects it has on the environment, community, and individuals. Also, although the government has the responsibility and the right to protect its community from unfitting message and content, individuals should be given certain rights to carry what they deemed suitable for themselves. The definition of obscenity differs among different individuals. What seems obscene to one may not be obscene to others. Thus it is important to have a sack up line on what the rights does the government has on implementing policies and guidelines to restrict art works from the audience.\r\n'