Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music, film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no public or government restrictions on what they do.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Creativity is one of the most pivotal factors that artists need to create masterpieces. Nonetheless, there has been a debate whether those who perform art in various forms, such as movies, poems and so on, should be permitted to act in whatever way they want. Though I am mostly in favour of this reckon, it is my belief that the government still has the right to interfere.
On the one hand, artists deserve freedom demonstrate what they want to express as limit in creativity brings out several drawbacks. Firstly, it lessens value of art, since many contents are considered inappropriate to the authorities, some countries even go far enough to ban products which contain these from being officially distributed. Take nudity as an example, it is regarded as mundane to many individuals, yet seems to be natural beauty in the eyes of who loves art. Furthermore, in the sense that the extent of content is limited, there would be a decrease in the number of people who take interest in this field. Secondly, performing under control may bore artists and make them lose interest in their career, as their ideas tend to be restricted by laws and policies. This can also be the main culprit that kills human creativity and development.
On the other hand, limitation is never unimportant. This is because of the fact that not every work is appropriate to be introduced to the public. It is a must to censor the artists' contributions in the first place. For instance, responsible authorities ought to check the quality of products like movies or books before allowing them to be released in order to eliminate the possibilities of heavily violent or misleading details.
In conclusion, I mostly agree with the idea of freedom in terms of art performance by virtue of the benefits downplaying the negative sides. Nevertheless, there also should be solutions to prevent the cons.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Freedom in art.
Creativity is one of the most pivotal factors that artists need to create masterpieces. Nonetheless, there has been a debate whether those who perform art in various forms, such as movies, poems and so on, should be permitted to act in whatever way they want. Though I am mostly in favour of this reckon, it is my belief that the government still has the right to interfere.
On the one hand, artists deserve freedom demonstrate what they want to express as limit in creativity brings out several drawbacks. Firstly, it lessens value of art, since many contents are considered inappropriate to the authorities, some countries even go far enough to ban products which contain these from being officially distributed. Take nudity as an example, it is regarded as mundane to many individuals, yet seems to be natural beauty in the eyes of who loves art. Furthermore, in the sense that the extent of content is limited, there would be a decrease in the number of people who take interest in this field. Secondly, performing under control may bore artists and make them lose interest in their career, as their ideas tend to be restricted by laws and policies. This can also be the main culprit that kills human creativity and development.
On the other hand, limitation is never unimportant. This is because of the fact that not every work is appropriate to be introduced to the public. It is a must to censor the artists' contributions in the first place. For instance, responsible authorities ought to check the quality of products like movies or books before allowing them to be released in order to eliminate the possibilities of heavily violent or misleading details.
In conclusion, I mostly agree with the idea of freedom in terms of art performance by virtue of the benefits downplaying the negative sides. Nevertheless, there also should be solutions to prevent the cons.
