Secilia
May 21, 2013
Writing Feedback / IELTS :Creativity needs freedom and so do the creative artists; Do you agree? [2]
In this deliberate and fee age, when art and science are blossoming, spiritual value is increasingly in demand. Meanwhile, creative artists are demanding their freedom to convey their own ideas in whichever way they would like. This freedom also includes that there should be no government restrictions on what way they do. This argument really makes sense and needs to be discussed.
There is definitely a multitude of advantages if creative artists possess the freedom to create whatever and however they please. Firstly, that means the freedom of civil rights. Artists would be largely encouraged and devoted themselves to the art which may gives birth to more and more brilliant works and consequently promote the development in this field. Furthermore, vary ways in creating also encourage the public to develop taste for the arts. Through pictures, music or film, they can cultivate a sense to appreciate. That is to say, freeing artistic expression community expends individuals' choices and enriches their lives.
However, such policy can bring a couple of problems when government restrictions are excluded. The biggest problem may be disturbing residents' daily lives and disordering the general public. For instance, street painting can potentially affect transport, making the intensive traffic even worse; in terms of music, the noise it brings about will break down the tranquil atmosphere and bother others. What's more, illegal behavior sometimes hides behind these so called artistic conductions. Take doodle as an example, someone may draw aimlessly and casually on the private walls, even cars, which can be considered serious infringement of the owner's proprietary right.
In summary, letting artists to choose the way to express art benefits both individuals and society. However, government restrictions must be persevered to prevent some problems it causes, in the condition that those restrictions allow abundant choices for them.
In this deliberate and fee age, when art and science are blossoming, spiritual value is increasingly in demand. Meanwhile, creative artists are demanding their freedom to convey their own ideas in whichever way they would like. This freedom also includes that there should be no government restrictions on what way they do. This argument really makes sense and needs to be discussed.
There is definitely a multitude of advantages if creative artists possess the freedom to create whatever and however they please. Firstly, that means the freedom of civil rights. Artists would be largely encouraged and devoted themselves to the art which may gives birth to more and more brilliant works and consequently promote the development in this field. Furthermore, vary ways in creating also encourage the public to develop taste for the arts. Through pictures, music or film, they can cultivate a sense to appreciate. That is to say, freeing artistic expression community expends individuals' choices and enriches their lives.
However, such policy can bring a couple of problems when government restrictions are excluded. The biggest problem may be disturbing residents' daily lives and disordering the general public. For instance, street painting can potentially affect transport, making the intensive traffic even worse; in terms of music, the noise it brings about will break down the tranquil atmosphere and bother others. What's more, illegal behavior sometimes hides behind these so called artistic conductions. Take doodle as an example, someone may draw aimlessly and casually on the private walls, even cars, which can be considered serious infringement of the owner's proprietary right.
In summary, letting artists to choose the way to express art benefits both individuals and society. However, government restrictions must be persevered to prevent some problems it causes, in the condition that those restrictions allow abundant choices for them.