In the recent years the faculty of art has faced much difficulty in exploring the scope of visual art. One reason is that there has been an increase in the censorship of visual art by the public who object to either the detailed graphical expressions that the artists want to display or unethical methods of expression adopted by artists. For instance a picture of a nude woman or a painting depicting perverted violence.

The question that jiggles the mind is not the art itself but rather the censorship attitude the public and authorities have adopted towards the artists. There are no organized measures or standards by which these arts are being banned. Any one who has an objection need only to voice their concern, before the “offending” artwork is banned from public display.

What censors do not realize is that art like these should be free. It should be given its due respect and freedom for exploration. When an artist endeavors on a painting or a design, his/her main purpose is to express as eloquently as possible, and not to offend. If he/she wants to share the work within the community, to ban it would mean to rescind one form of communication.

Some examples are the street murals and graffiti’s. Young artists having no means or tools to display their imaginative expressions resort to the walls. Whether these are on the streets of America or Pakistan, murals are declared as “destructive” because they mar the infrastructure of the community. They are therefore regularly “wiped off” with whitewash.

In the same manner a dance is questionable if it displays too much sexuality. Some cultural dance expresses message through the movements of the body. It is an expression portrayed by the artist, a message conveyed through body language. A dance may communicate to the audience a story, a public message or history of an era, yet people frown on such displays.

Similarly, one observes theatrical and movie artists are subject to censorship. For example a film director undertakes a movie with specific scenes and dialogues to communicate specific messages to the public. The linkages of scenes make the movie a complete whole “message’. He/she uses visual effects, mise-en-scene etc. to project to the audience as realistic as possible the message that he wants to communicate. To edit or eradicate parts from a movie obviously de-links the message, the impact as well as momentousness within the story line. Not only would the viewers find it incomprehensible but they would also be denied the intricacies of the movie’s essential content. Although most censors justify their “cuts” with “it was not needed” but the fact remains the same: they are tearing apart a piece of artwork.

Art is important for cultural development. It needs preservation, for generations to come. If we are not allowed to express our views of the world we live in then there will be no heritage by which future generations can live by or refer to for progress and development. Our heritage has been transferred through artwork by our forefathers that we proudly exalt in its display. What will be our legacy to our future generation if we regularly censor our artwork?