Creative artists 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 extent do you agree or disagree?

 Creative artists 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 extent do you agree or disagree?

There has been a controversy on the freedom of expression for poets, musicians, and film-makers, to name a few. Many believe that such individuals should enjoy the liberty to create and exhibit their work, while others favor defining some limits. This essay shall critically scrutinise this matter and draw a plausible conclusion.

To embark upon the discussion, it is commonly professed that those  engaged in various manifestations of art should enjoy full control over their ideas. These individuals promote innovation, and thus,  should be able to express their thoughts without the fear of censorship, or reprimand,  and usher in freshness, and  adding to the vibrant social environment. Moreover, art is not only considered a powerful way  of expressing feelings and emotions but also addresses several social issues, engendering awareness about critical communal challenges and  stigmas, and inspiring a change. For instance, the movie “Orange is the new black” was released highlighting the challenges faced by black people in the USA; it created enlightenment about the people facing racial injustice, and persuaded scores  of US  citizens  to call for halting this appalling practice.  

Nevertheless, the critics throw up their arms in horror and suggest that it is essential for the government to regulate the work of art. According to them, those creating such content might become irresponsible and violate moral values and express themselves in inappropriate forms, causing social discord, and hence, cannot be overlooked. For example, in 2011, a music producer presented a song that resulted in chaos and disharmony, and led to a curfew in Italy.  

To conclude, disputes aside, I feel even though the ideas and thoughts of the artists might promote progress, some governmental intervention is essential for the sake of public good, and  sustain a harmonious communal environment. 

Creative artists 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 extent do you agree or disagree?

 Creative artists 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 extent do you agree or disagree?

• 
  
  

  
  

Agree? Why? 

• They represent the culture and tradition and help perpetuate these  further: this has been historically proven 

• Their work reflects the condition of society 

• These people have a pivotal in bringing around revolutions

Disagree? Why? 

• Some people have the habit of abusing their creative freedom and tend to create controversial work which can upset certain sections of society and cause unrest 

• Nowadays, many have started harboring commercial interests and tend to create for character assassination of certain key public figures 

The great public discourse of current times is aligned with the issue of whether people blessed with creativity should be bound by certain restrictions or not. Some are in favor of rendering complete independence, others are up in arms against this motion.

When it comes to discussing affording freedom to those engaged in creative arts,  there is a general perception that it should be accorded unconditionally. However, there are views that stand against this notion.        

There is an overwhelming support for the notion of rendering absolute liberty to the exponents of various art forms. This opinion is founded on the historical facts that reflect that it is these people who have helped perpetuate traditions and culture. The creative expression that evolved in the past and that enjoyed complete freedom has made it possible for the current generations to know about their heritage and also how their ancestors survived and thrived. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the current generation to let people engaged in various manifestations of art, to freely churn out their imaginative masterpieces so that the descendants can also be informed about today.  

However, there is a view that is based on the current socio-political situation across the world where the world is experiencing a volatile environment, and a little instigation can result in social unrest since some work might not go down well with certain communities and they may react violently. Therefore, there is a need to install some limits to ensure that creativity does not evoke controversies and arouse emotions. There have been several incidents in recent years where some societies resorted to violent protests due to some paintings, cartoons and movies, which resulted in loss of man and material.      

Overall, I partially concur with this proposal: even though affording freedom to those working in various realms of artistic domains is justified, there need to be some monitoring and regulation to ensure that their work does not bring the public in harm’s way.   

Creative artists 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 extent do you agree or disagree?

Creative artists 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 extent do you agree or disagree?

 

Restriction on creativity 

Art and creativeness have always inspired the society, and have given it a reason to rejoice and enjoy the life, but sometimes creativity tends to offend aspirations of some parts of social groups. This inspires some sections to advocate keeping a check on what artists can do though some others feel that freedom of people connected with arts should not be curtailed.

Art has always illustrated and reflected the aspirations of society and community from where it originates. Down the centuries, it has been regarded as an icon of deeply embedded rich traditions and culture by the creators and the admirers alike. Curtailing the freedom of artistic expression would have an adverse impact on the outlook of the society as it would make that society look like a ghetto of hardliners which is greatly influenced by the fanatic zealots.

Besides this, creative people like painters, dancers, actors, poets and writers have always stimulated renaissance and revolution. Common people have always been positively influenced by the path breaking ideas perpetuated by the creators of masterpieces in literature, poetry, statues and painted exhibits etc. For example, Shakespeare, a renowned playwright is considered to be an icon of creativity by Brits who still take a lot of wisdom from his plays which he wrote with a view of reflecting contemporary social aspirations.

However, creativeness as per some, should not be allowed an unimpeded access to expression as it can have adverse impact on the society. The creations of some of the artistic exponents can often lead to social conflicts which in turn can offset and dilute the very objective of creation. Some artists are often even termed as biased and selfish. 

To sum up, I feel that independence of people connected with arts should not be impeded: the exponents of arts are vehicles of perpetuating culture. Therefore, I completely subscribe to the statement.