# data[].attributes.body
some images are tragic events that's occur and those Images  maybe sensitive to others.

# data[].attributes.body
An imagine that is extremely unpleasant shouldn't have a limit aesthetically, since they're typically taken to provoke thought.  However, if a picture shows intense violence, a moral limit is debatable.  It could be unsettling to some people and maybe shouldn't be shown to them, but that doesn't prevent the events in the picture from existing, so you're really just hiding real life things from people.

# data[].attributes.body
No there should not be a limit of images.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many opinions on the limit on these types of images, but others can agree that there should not be a limit- moral or aesthetic- on these types of images, because as many of them may be created, they produce the same events and facts as images of the real life events. Opposing viewers may say that most people during those events might be sensitive to these images, but if those ideas of that time weren't completely given out for others to see how or what it would look like, they wouldn't get the sensory of what it felt like. In other words, they wouldn't gather the given emotion.

# data[].attributes.body
Some could say there should be a limit to these types of images, yet in the real world, we cannot hide from true events and facts, and art I see meant to show creative work from our imagination or the real world. For some audiences there should be somewhat of a limit, but we have to allow ourselves to be exposed to feelings and different views of life.

# data[].attributes.body
I think there should be no limit because photos show real life things that are happening that need to be shown.

# data[].attributes.body
art is colorful.

# data[].attributes.body
No, pictures or images are supposed to be a show of someone's thoughts and feelings in a way. Just because its is atrocious, ugly, or vile to someone, does not mean that it should be limited or shunned from other people. They are only expressions that shouldn't be judged. They should be seen for what they are and what they could possibly mean to other people

# data[].attributes.body
There's a difference between showing violence to convey the depth of tragedy or horrific wrongdoing and simply being gratuitous. As long as a photographer understands this and understands the repercussions of presenting each type of image, they can take or display whatever they want. As long as a viewer understands this, they can decide whether or not they want to see such an image. The limit is at the individual's discretion.

# data[].attributes.body
No because people need to see the harm that can be done.

# data[].attributes.body
no, pictures show emotion of the photographer and if they are feeling angry or depressed they show that emotion in their photos.

# data[].attributes.body
No there shouldn't be a limit

# data[].attributes.body
In acts of tragedy , photos of this sort are necessary. In certain cases of protest this is also necessary. Violence in certain situations are also necessary, but not in all.  Art portrays raw feelings.

# data[].attributes.body
No there should not be

# data[].attributes.body
No because art is meant to evoke strong emotion and no emotions should be barred. Additionally, art of atrocities helps us remember and understand the emotions and perceptions of people at this time.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes because there are boundaries

# data[].attributes.body
I think it all depends on the images. Because art is meant to make people feel something. And images with a stronger meaning can help us remember a situation that happened.

# data[].attributes.body
No, it is meant to convey emotion

# data[].attributes.body
no but there is a line you shouldn't cross

# data[].attributes.body
Depending on how atrocious it is  there should be certain concerns on why it was taken and what the picture is trying to convey