Creative artists should be given freedom to express their ideas through words, pictures, music or films. Some people nevertheless think that the government should restrict artist's freedom of expression. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
"Give me Liberty or give me Death" , says, Pattrick Henry, the world-renowed artist in the American history. The matter of whether artists should be given total freedom to voice their own opinions through their works of art and meanwhile devote more great masterpices to human life is always in dispute. My view is that the government should draw the line at the freedom of expression for them.
First of all, unarguably, each citizen in society have the right to express their own opinions, known as the freedom of speech. This right is properly protected by law. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that not any statements or messages could be conveyed to viewers, regardless of content, particularly in the realm of politics or racial attitudes. Also artists are parts of the society and thus can not be an exception. Moreover, as a rule, artists are considered as trend-makers whose behaviors and lifestyles often draw public's attention. Considering such profound influences their ways of life exert on normal people, the government should impose constraints on what can be made available to the public and what not.
Secondly, it is thought that freedom is a source of inspiration in creating arts. Artists, if so obsessed by censorship or prosecution, would become unable to compose any great masterworks as being inhibited. Our lives would go hand in hand with monotony and humans might fail to establish their distinct cultural identity through artworks. This may sound true to a certain extent; however, the truth is that in an effort to yield enormous profits for themselves there are, nowadays, a number of artists who are likely to abuse their sole prerogative to cross the line, producing sex-arousing imagines, bias-provoking novels or obsence movies in disguise of the artworks. What is so-called true arts, as a result, might be put on the verge of extinction. The aesthetic taste of humanity, likewise, would be misleaded, easpecially that of the younger generation. In such cases, restraints definitely prove to be pivotal.
As analysed above, one can come to conclusion that the artists should be given restrict freedom on composing arts. Hopefully in the future, there is no need for censorship by dint of artists' self-consciousness, but in the meantime, this prescription probably remains essential so as to preserve the true aesthetic beauty of arts.
"Give me Liberty or give me Death" , says, Pattrick Henry, the world-renowed artist in the American history. The matter of whether artists should be given total freedom to voice their own opinions through their works of art and meanwhile devote more great masterpices to human life is always in dispute. My view is that the government should draw the line at the freedom of expression for them.
First of all, unarguably, each citizen in society have the right to express their own opinions, known as the freedom of speech. This right is properly protected by law. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that not any statements or messages could be conveyed to viewers, regardless of content, particularly in the realm of politics or racial attitudes. Also artists are parts of the society and thus can not be an exception. Moreover, as a rule, artists are considered as trend-makers whose behaviors and lifestyles often draw public's attention. Considering such profound influences their ways of life exert on normal people, the government should impose constraints on what can be made available to the public and what not.
Secondly, it is thought that freedom is a source of inspiration in creating arts. Artists, if so obsessed by censorship or prosecution, would become unable to compose any great masterworks as being inhibited. Our lives would go hand in hand with monotony and humans might fail to establish their distinct cultural identity through artworks. This may sound true to a certain extent; however, the truth is that in an effort to yield enormous profits for themselves there are, nowadays, a number of artists who are likely to abuse their sole prerogative to cross the line, producing sex-arousing imagines, bias-provoking novels or obsence movies in disguise of the artworks. What is so-called true arts, as a result, might be put on the verge of extinction. The aesthetic taste of humanity, likewise, would be misleaded, easpecially that of the younger generation. In such cases, restraints definitely prove to be pivotal.
As analysed above, one can come to conclusion that the artists should be given restrict freedom on composing arts. Hopefully in the future, there is no need for censorship by dint of artists' self-consciousness, but in the meantime, this prescription probably remains essential so as to preserve the true aesthetic beauty of arts.
