Why the Art That Infuriates Should Not be Removed

Why The Art That Infuriates Should Not Be Removed
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Why The Art That Infuriates Should Not Be Removed
Specifically, art refers to artists expressing their desires, intuitions, feelings, or thoughts regarding a specific topic. It encompasses sharing how they feel about the planet and an approach to communicating intimate aspects that might never be demonstrated through words alone. The U.S Constitution acknowledges that artistic expression is relevant and must be protected. Therefore, art that infuriates should not be removed.
           “Should art that infuriates be removed?” by Robert Smith acknowledges that people come across art that frustrates them, making their brains yell and, most importantly, supporting that such art does not deserve to exist, especially in the art galleries. Smith (2017) wonders whether this art that makes people upset or angry should ultimately be out of sight of everyone or destroyed. He added that the infuriating art had triggered much controversy splitting the art world into proposers and opposers on whether removing the art is a good idea. One highlighted art in Smith’s article is Ms. Schutz’s art, primarily focusing on physical suffering indicated by devastated skin and bodies. An example is an art showing of Michael Jackson in a post-mortem session. In my opinion, art that infuriates should not be removed. Some people might argue and support that such art is not appropriate for viewing and preservation in art archives, but the reality is that various artists give the viewers significant monumentality that photography can never attain since this hand-written physicality creates unique memories promoting their preservation, such art that some individuals consider “infuriating” should never disappear as it serves good intentions or purpose....