Any time the idea of censoring an artist's vision comes into play, we are going to find ourselves on a slippery slope towards either total libertinism or total fascism. Being an artist of sorts myself (I'm a writer) I do find myself questioning whether what I am depicting is right or wrong. In my college days, one of my instructors was adamant that there needs to be a sense of responsibility in what one chooses to portray as an artist. My personal preference is for beauty: although I may write certain characters as villains, good almost always overcomes evil. Regarding art such as paintings and films, I personally choose to view works that portray goodness, grace, and light rather than darkness.

Rather than suggest that art merely imitates life, I would propose that in this post-modern world, it is the other way around-- that in many ways our current society has been shaped to a large degree by what is seen in the art world (i.e. art, literature, film, music, etc.) And as the so-called intelligensia affirms the "truth" of these works of art, such behavior, no matter how unseemly at times, becomes acceptable behavior.

I would say that Epicurius was wrong when he said that art is not meant to educate. Every experience in life-- even the simple viewing of a painting-- is an educational experience. In that respect, I think it would be wise for artists to exercise some restraint in what they depict. At the same time, however, I think it is incumbent on the consumer/viewer to exercise restraint concerning what is viewed in one's home. Just because the Supreme Court says that pornogrpahy is protected under the First Amendment does not mean that it is appropriate viewing for a five year old.