Does the artist assume an ethical responsibility or does this begin with the interpretation of the observer? If artists are sometimes criticized, even censored, how can this be freedom of expression? Freedom of expression should not limit the methods used to generate ideas. Some artistic methods have surfaced and offended people. People started killing animals for artistic purposes in order to raise awareness about the damage we are causing 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 are doing . The reaction comes from the idea and if it is exposed to the world, it will eventually spread. These ideas can vary from one educational field to another, without being limited to a particular field like the natural sciences. All the knowledge gained through the arts then raises more questions, which in turn makes them more difficult to answer and therefore people will delve into more unethical ideas. The questions I address are: Do we as people begin to realize what we all do and consciously change our habits because of this idea, or do we judge the artist for for doing something so unethical and we turn our heads? Does art even have to have some kind of purpose or is it enough to be art on its own? Can art that is not ethically based have a greater response and, therefore, greater value? If a work of art provokes a reaction, can we call all these types of methods unethical? Yolande