Does the artist have ethical responsibilities or do these begin with the interpretation of the observer? If artists are criticized or even censored in some places, how can this be freedom of speech? Free speech should not limit the methods used in the production of ideas. Some artistic methods have emerged that have offended people. People started killing animals for artistic purposes to make people aware of how much damage we cause to our environment with the use of different chemicals. The artists wanted to show how we are gradually destroying our world through the immoral actions that people try to avoid. Kant would not agree with artists because his action is unethical, but utilitarianism could possibly agree with these methods, because observers react to artistic works and this makes them aware of what we do. The reaction comes from the idea and if these are exposed to the world, they will eventually spread. These ideas can vary from one educational field to another, without being limited to a particular field such as the natural sciences. All the knowledge gained from the arts therefore raises more questions, which in return makes it harder to solve and therefore people will delve into more unethical ideas. The questions I am concerned with are; do we people start to be aware of what we all do and consciously change our habits because of the idea, or do we judge the artist for doing something so unethical and turn our heads? Does art have to have some kind of purpose or is just being art enough? Can an art that does not have an ethical basis have a greater reaction and consequently a higher value? If a work of art makes people react, can we classify all these types of methods as unethical? Yolanda