Creative Artists Should Be Given Freedom
1. 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.
Innovative artists bring enjoyment and inspiration to our sometimes tedious life; however, some people deem that artists have been entrusted with too much freedom and power and should be restricted by the government. It is my personal belief that freedom of expressing thoughts and ideas should always be eulogized and it's rather iniquitous to impose a shackle on artists' will to create.
One of the major concerns against freeing artists' creation derives from the fear of social misleading which would destabilize the society; however, I believe the audiences have their own judgment and are not likely to be misled or influenced by some art work. It is needless to say that art inevitably involves imagination, exaggeration and sometimes is purely fabricated; regardless of whether the work of art is based on truth or not, it is the public's authority to determine how to interpret its meaning. If the art displays unreality, the public audiences certainly have the acumen to recognize its untruthfulness and only appreciate its art value; if the art reflects the reality, then what would be the intention to ban it if it was not for covering the dirty truth? Would it be autocratic if the government clamps down the artists who are telling the truth? In a word, the notion of being afraid of social misleading is unjustified.
Let's then take a look at the impact that art has posed on individuals. It is undeniable that some of the art work may contain negative implications such as insanity, violence, eroticism etc. I absolutely agree that restrictions on exposure to adolescents should apply as adolescents are not mature enough to avoid being led astray by these contents; however, in
Innovative artists bring enjoyment and inspiration to our sometimes tedious life; however, some people deem that artists have been entrusted with too much freedom and power and should be restricted by the government. It is my personal belief that freedom of expressing thoughts and ideas should always be eulogized and it's rather iniquitous to impose a shackle on artists' will to create.
One of the major concerns against freeing artists' creation derives from the fear of social misleading which would destabilize the society; however, I believe the audiences have their own judgment and are not likely to be misled or influenced by some art work. It is needless to say that art inevitably involves imagination, exaggeration and sometimes is purely fabricated; regardless of whether the work of art is based on truth or not, it is the public's authority to determine how to interpret its meaning. If the art displays unreality, the public audiences certainly have the acumen to recognize its untruthfulness and only appreciate its art value; if the art reflects the reality, then what would be the intention to ban it if it was not for covering the dirty truth? Would it be autocratic if the government clamps down the artists who are telling the truth? In a word, the notion of being afraid of social misleading is unjustified.
Let's then take a look at the impact that art has posed on individuals. It is undeniable that some of the art work may contain negative implications such as insanity, violence, eroticism etc. I absolutely agree that restrictions on exposure to adolescents should apply as adolescents are not mature enough to avoid being led astray by these contents; however, in