When discussing this issue, we need to distinguish the boundary between "freedom of artistic expression" and "substantial harm to animals". Although art often encourages breaking conventions to challenge social concepts and provoke reflection, any behavior that involves harming innocent lives and causing pain to animals is a serious ethical and legal issue. The following points may help understand the complexity of this issue: 1. Artistic expression and ethical responsibility: Artistic creation does enjoy a certain degree of freedom, which allows artists to express their views in a variety of ways. However, this freedom does not mean that basic ethical and legal provisions can be ignored. Animal abuse not only violates generally accepted moral standards, but also often violates animal protection laws. Any "artistic expression" that causes harm to animals, even if it is intended to arouse discussion or reflection, is difficult to gain widespread recognition or legal protection. 2. Social and legal consensus: In most countries and cultures, animals are regarded as lives that should be protected. Whether it is strictly for ethical considerations or to incorporate such protection into the legal system, the abuse or abuse of animals often arouses strong public disgust and legal sanctions. Therefore, even if some artists try to express a certain idea through extreme means, such behavior may still face legal risks and social condemnation. 3. Is it necessary for art to cross ethical boundaries: Some artists may advocate that art development and social progress can be promoted by challenging conventions and breaking taboos. However, the question is, should art come at the cost of harming innocent lives? Most people believe that the boundaries of art should respect basic ethics and should not be at the cost of sacrificing life and well-being. Harming animals cannot be simply summarized as an artistic means, but is more likely to be seen as an unacceptable atrocity. 4. Controversial art and public discussion: There are indeed some works of art or behaviors that are intended to challenge traditional concepts, which may involve controversial themes or even expressions. But in the vast majority of cases, artists will use metaphors, symbols or other non-direct harm methods in their works to convey ideas, rather than actually harming living entities. Directly abusing animals not only fails to form a truly effective artistic dialogue, but also deviates from the topic that the work itself intends to discuss. In general, the act of abusing animals is not suitable for recognition as an artistic expression because it involves ethical, moral and legal issues that cannot be ignored. Artworks that truly have profound connotations and social influence should, on the premise of respecting the basic right to life, trigger thinking and dialogue through rational and creative means, rather than achieving their goals by harming innocent creatures.