Discuss the claim: Artists should not be limited by questions of ethics.
I agree with the claim that “Artists should not be limited by questions of ethics.” however I believe that this really depends on the context. This is because without the need to consider ethics, artists can have much more freedom and be able to express a story or belief much easier through their art. However it can only be justified if this method is the best way to express that particular message. Sometimes not considering ethics allows artistic intention to be reached much easier. And often times it is this unethical behaviour that makes an artwork unique and allows the message to be communicated most effectively.
However the question if an artist is allowed to disregard ethics really depends on the context and situation, for example an artist must consider ethics if the art piece involves harming of or the inhumane acts towards living things (such as animal cruelty) in order to communicate through art. Instead the artist could resort to other methods which could also communicate the same message, although it may not be as effective as it could have been, nothing can justify harming living things to solely serve an artistic purpose.