Free Art; positive artistic activities should always be encouraged

Hello, everybody. I am preparing my IELTS exam these days and I am a little nervous about it. Since I have graduated for more than three years, I really need some help with my writing and I do appreciate your comments and suggestion. Thank you very much.

TOPIC: Creative artists should be given freedom to express their ideas (words, pictures, music and films. However some people think government should take some restriction with them. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Give your reasons with own knowledge and give examples.

Whenever we trace back the history of human civilisation, magnificent and breath-taking masterpieces in all sorts of patterns will definitely make us very much proud of our ancestors' power of imagination, innovation and creativity. However, whether creative artists should always be given the feedom to interpret their innovative thoughts into words, pictures, music or films, remains a controversial issue.

Although their rights to express their creativity should always be defended, artists are playing such an important role in society, especially among the adolescents, that somehow there should be government restrictions on what they create. Take the performing arts, behavioural arts to be specific, for example, which is now widespread through the Internet. Sometimes, the behavioural artists are going to far away from the bottom line of aesthetic values. Teenagers surfing on the Internet without parentally accompanied are simply exposed to some misleading images or videos which are usually hard for them to understand. Younsters see from these materials nothing but violence and pornorgraphy. On this kind of occasion, government restrictions are difinitely necessary to get involved.

In the meantime, however, there should be freedom to some extent for the artists to develop their creativity. The government should always spare no efforts to finance and thus encourage the artists to dedicate more endeavour to their creations. Our cities are in need of innovative architecture and sculptures. Human mind is in thirst of enlightening and think-provoking literature and music.

Creative, and more importantly, positive artistic activities, from my point of view, should always be encouraged. Government restrictions are, therefore, prerequisite to make sure that more civilasation legacies be left to our descendants rather than moral poisons.

Hey, I like this first sentence a lot! I would make a small change, though:

...definitely make us very much proud of our...

your 1st paragraph has only 2 sentences. I think you should add one more sentence to that paragraph, and use it to take a stand on the issue.

Oh, I see that you took a stand in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph... but I think you should make that argument in the last sentence of the first paragraph, too. That way, the 2nd paragraph will sever to explain the assertion you made in paragraph #1.

Creative, and more importantly, positive artistic activities, from my point of view, should always be encouraged. Who is to say what is positive? This would be stronger if you really made a clear argument based on your opinion. Give a solution. Should censorship be permitted if certain criteria are met? For example, should certain words or images be barred from certain Internet sites? It would be good if you gave an arguable thesis. Right now, you are wishy-washy!!

:) The writing is good, though!

from my point of view, should always be encouraged.
it means that you wrote the third paragraph to support your view. i think that it will be much better if you write the third longer.

Since aesthetic values are not defined, how can they have a bottom line? Who decides? If art is limited, is it still art? Isn't the purpose of art to blur the lines, to shift the boundaries of our thinking? Shouldn't art make us uncomfortable?

These are some questions you are going to have to think about to answer this topic question honestly.

To Kevin,
Thank you. What if I add something in the end of the 1st paragraph like this:

Whenever we trace back the history of human civilisation, magnificent and breath-taking masterpieces in all sorts of patterns will definitely make us very much proud of our ancestors' power of imagination, innovation and creativity. However, whether creative artists should always be given the feedom to interpret their innovative thoughts into words, pictures, music or films, remains a controversial issue. On balance, I fundamentally agree with the notion that government restrictions should be involved in some amount, and my points are discussed below.

As for the 2nd paragragh, is it better to make a change in the end of it as follows:

Although their rights to express their creativity should always be defended, artists are playing such an important role in society, especially among the adolescents, that somehow there should be government restrictions on what they create. Take the performing arts, behavioural arts to be specific, for example, which is now widespread through the Internet. Sometimes, the behavioural artists are going to far away from the bottom line of aesthetic values. Teenagers surfing on the Internet without parentally accompanied are simply exposed to some misleading images or videos which are usually hard for them to understand. Younsters see from these materials nothing but violence and pornorgraphy. On this kind of occasion, government restrictions are difinitely necessary to get involved. For instance, the Chinese government is now funding a filtering system for the teenagers, namely Green Dam Youth Escort, aimed at restricting online pornorgraphy.

And, I realised that there were no argument supporting the positive artistic activities, so I decided no to mention this as following:

In sum, creative artistic activities, from my point of view, should be valued and encouraged. But meanwhile, government restrictions are prerequisite to make sure that what is left behind to our descendants are more civilasation legacies rather than moral poisons.

Let me know if any suggestions. Thank you for your help:)

To thinhtvdhtm,

Thank you very much. I am trying to think of something I can add to the end, too...

To Stephen,
Thank you.
So, is it a good idea if extended explanations of the aesthetic values and the bottom line are included? Yes, I agree that art should not be limited either. But, you know, this does not mean art should be unlimited. Sometimes, it is only technically art, right? :P

Technically, if you limit art in any way, it isn't unlimited. This is a difficult argument. It is almost impossible to even say what art is or isn't. We have a fundamental sense of when it isn't, and we definitely know when it is, but saying why we know or how we know is impossible.

Also, what is art to me may not be to you. So if we had to decide, how would we do it? There is no standard by which to judge it.

That is exactly why I think it is dangerous to limit artistic expression in any form. Certainly governments shouldn't be doing it. If you are going to make that argument, you are going to have to be very objective about it. And also very persuasive.