Between Artistic License and Art Censorship: A Levinasian Account of How the I Should Respond to the Alterity of Art

The creative industry frequently confronts the need to reflect on artworks' moral and political implications.Controversial films, interpretations of classic novels, and other artworks beg the question: "Where does true artistic freedom lie?" Two extremes are often encountered concerning artistic freedom: artistic license and art censorship.On the one hand, artistic license is often invoked when artists intentionally or unintentionally create an artwork that contradicts a faithful representation of reality.On the other hand, art censorship restricts creative freedom and freedom of expression in the name of political expediency.Such restrictions led to banning books and labeling topics as taboo.In this regard, I clarify the moral implications of Emmanuel Levinas' theory on art, demonstrating the convergence between art and ethics.This study expounds on my claim that the realm of art can both (1) incite infinite responsibility towards the radical alterity of the artwork-consequently also spilling over towards other Other that bear a trace in the artwork and (2) reinforce the self towards sameness and an evasion of responsibility.Given these two possibilities, the appropriateness of whether to evoke artistic license or employ art censorship is clarified.