Thursday, 28 June 2012
Creative artist should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do.
To what extend do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
265 words, 33 minutes (after self corrections)
In some countries, governments are used to making decisions related to some regulation about what kind of art is allowed to exist or not. While, some people believe that artist should be free as they want to. Those groups support the idea that the only limit for artists ought to be their creativity. It is a complicated issue which needs a deep down evaluation before offering an opinion.
Many people around the history have described art as a mirror of the culture. They have said that every society develops some specific types of artistry manifestations to illustrate that particular reality.
Consequently, it is common that governments do not want to permit showing everything which is happening in some historical moments. Most of people think that it is the only reason to censors art, and they could not accept that idea.
On the other hand, presently some artists get used to express their opinions and creativity in disrespectful ways, for instance on private walls or public structures. It is becoming usual that some people modify those things in name of the art. From my point of view, it is a wrong practice because the right of someone to express his/her artistic skills is not a reason to break the others rights.
In conclusion, art is an essential way to show situations and historical events, so it must be free; however, any kind of creative actions should affect either private or public structures or walls; because those forms of manifestations are in the limit between art and vandalism; then government need to take care and restrict them.