I refer to the article Self-Censorship Urged ‘For Quality’s Sake’ (November 20). The article reviews events at the artistic exhibition by the Front Against Censorship named The Art of Silence, and relates to guest speaker Anton Bonnici’s criticism of the front.

I have been an activist within the front from its inception and it was I who invited Mr Bonnici to speak at the exhibition. I did not know in advance the nature of the speech he would deliver, which was critical of the front. I wish here to thank him for his insight; the front is a changing movement and such criticism helps us grow and better understand the views of the artistic community with which I believe we have common interests.

I shall summarise here Mr Bonnici’s speech for the benefit of the readers. The content can be roughly divided into three parts. The first is the argument that one of the main forces of censorship is the market oriented nature of the publishing industries; an artist will not get published if his work does not sell, even if this is of high quality. The second part looks at the local scenario and illustrates how we are incapable of appreciating these forces; and complains that the censorship debate has become a battle of conservatives against liberals. The argument then accuses both groups of promoting mediocrity, with the first trying to promote “a sterile and conformist notion of art” and the second “by promoting the notion that for art and literature to be truly art and literature, they must be obscene”. Finally, the third part talks about the necessity of self-censorship, in the sense of leaving out what is “substandard when compared to one’s own standards”, for artistic reasons. This would produce works which deserve to be appreciated.

I, and many front activists, agree with the first argument. Market pressures can prevent a work from reaching its audience. It can be thus classified as a case of censorship. I appreciate this argument and I thank him for providing this perspective to us.

However, the second argument is fallacious. The front never promoted the notion that art must be obscene.

What we promote is that artistically, people should be free to express themselves in any way they deem necessary for the structure of their own work. The present laws and the ideology espoused by the conservative camp is that work containing material which might be deemed obscene is automatically bad. The criterion used to judge a work is a moralistic one. On the contrary what we are saying is that obscenity does not make or break the piece of art, and thus should not be censored on those grounds. People should be free to applaud a work of art if they like it and criticise it if they do not. The work should not be stopped from reaching the audience; the present censorship regime can kill off both good and bad works just because they contain “prohibited material”. One is not censoring on quality, one is censoring on some perceived notion of morality. We therefore claim that our work is legitimate and a far cry from the immaturity claimed in Mr Bonnici’s address.

We, as the front, are not denying that creative, artistic self-censorship can produce a better, more refined work. What we are worried about is repressive laws (with prison sentences) which stop artists from expressing their commentary on subjects that might be deemed sensitive; which stop society from criticising itself and from growing into a more mature state.