One day, a liberal artist and a conservative artist had what was supposed to be a somewhat level-headed discussion about art that dwindled into a petty argument about art that went around in circles and circles.

“Art is supposed to be free,” the liberal artist proclaimed, “Anyone who tries to censor it for unrealistic and shallow justifications can only be a dictator.”

“Yes, yes, yes, that’s right,” droned the conservative artist, “But a lot of people are too foolish, too literal, too impressionable. Art must be carefully supervised, so people would only receive the correct way to live and prosper.”

“That’s not how art does work,” the liberal artist shot back, “Art is birthed from honesty as well as creativity. Art isn’t a moral monitor for the people, it should be the total freedom of expression and opinions of both the artist and the audience.”

“Yes, yes, yes, that is true,” injected the conservative artist, “But the artist should be at least aware of the world around them and know that there should be lines that mustn’t be crossed or violated.”

“You bring up a good perspective,” the liberal artist admitted, “Art is also full of everything and sometimes are stereotypes and prejudices that only continue ignorance. Art should be constantly critically reviewed and overseen, therefore it wouldn’t bring destruction and immorality upon the people.”

    “Yes, yes, yes, that is accurate,” hummed the conservative artist, “But art and artists should not be condemned for what they created nor pressured to create stale pieces. Art is also an expression of opinion, and no matter what those opinions are, they should be respected from the audience. A piece of art should be whatever the artist wants, and artists should create whatever they want without being punished for it.” 

    “You make a good point,” the liberal artist acknowledged, “But artists are humans and humans can be horrible as well as good, and sometimes the art that is made from these horrible humans often exploits moral boundaries for the sake of receiving recognition and acclaim.”

    “Yes, yes, yes, that is correct,” crooned the conservative artist, “But the audience shouldn’t take art too seriously. Artists should do what they want without being so cautious of offending extremely reactionary and soft individuals whose outrage is extremely overblown.” 

    “You bring up a good argument,” the liberal artist recognized, “But sometimes some of those outrages are valid and should be listened to, as art has occasionally been used to intentionally harm the outsiders of society—in both representation and creation. Artists should make themselves aware of these issues as well as include and recognize society’s outsiders in the sphere of art.”

    “Yes, yes, yes, that is exactly right,” mumbled the conservative artist, “But artists can only be artists if they put the work in. The mere act of being inclusive to others who hadn’t done the work and whose below-average pieces only receive recognition and acclaim just for being society’s outsider is insulting to art, true artists, and the so-called artist. There is a reason why so few people are able to become an artist.”

    “Art should be accessible for all,” the liberal artist asserted, “Not for a select few who’s always the dominant in power and wealth. Being inclusive doesn’t equal to a decrease in quality.”

“Yes, yes, yes, that is somewhat true,” murmured the conservative artist, “But those outsider individuals don’t always bring the best of humanity, and they would have the audacity to glorify it and because of that glorification, the people would attempt to replicate that depraved glory to foolishly enrich their own lives at the cost of ruining society! This is why art should be closely supervised to remove those potential pieces that would bring harm to society and replaced with moral lessons to improve society.”

“Art should be totally free!” the liberal artist argued back. And so on and so on.

Throughout the day, the two artists bickered back and forth, each of their examples and points neither gaining nor losing ground. Their exasperating ruckus immediately annoyed everything that came across the—animals, humans, bugs, winds, plants, water, spirits, ghosts, monsters, demons, angels, saints, gods. It wasn’t long until this argument started to stink so gravely that the Nine Muses in heaven began to hear it and couldn’t stand it within a millisecond of smelling it.
Determined to cease this stank off the earth and their home, the Nine Muses descended in front of the two artists and demanded, “Your wasted words have created a stench so disgusting that all things good and evil are avoiding you! Cease your foolish arguing!”

Yet, despite confronted with the divine, despite being at the other’s throats previously, both the liberal artist and the conservative artist simultaneously said, “But dear Muses, this art-centered discussion isn’t based on personal philosophy but of practical politics!” and they quickly gave the Muses their arguments in hopes of their argument receiving the ultimate divine agreement and approval.

But they didn’t receive it due to the Nine Muses instantaneously burst into uncontrollable laughter that lasted for a short but unreasonably uncomfortable amount of time. Once it was quelled and their breaths returned, the Nine Muses simply but bluntly stated, “Art is mysterious and the correct usage of it in society and politics will forever be unknown. Be fine with art, be content with all its joy and misery, and just create art, fools. Also, based on your reeking arguing, it is clear to us that Satan’s feces would definitely make better art than you two.”


About the author

First generation Mexican-Canadian-American and lover of skulls and books, Dana Trick lives in Southern California where it is clearly foolish to wear black any day but she does it anyway. When she isn’t being a historian, Dana Trick spends her days writing emotional poems and weird stories, and drawing comic strips that she thinks are hilarious. She enjoys learning about the history and the various mythologies of Latin America and Asia, but her interest is mainly on the history of autism, which she has. Her work has been published on Art of Autism, the Lothlorien Poetry Journal, DeviantArt, and The Ugly Writers. She wishes the reader a nice day.