Some people today argue that the media has become increasingly nostalgic and unoriginal. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people today argue that the media has become increasingly nostalgic and unoriginal. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Agree 

• Most people are used to the content that has already been produced and cannot be replicated, so media houses go on producing sequels of those 
• The multitude of investment has risen manifolds and investors do not want to risk into experimentation 
• Even in music, most are shifting back to the classic style 

Disagree 

• The unconventional approach still thrives: movies and operas have moved away from glamor of star-like appearances to content that portrays more real life like situations 
• Even if some old content is being showcased, it is in modern perspective and not dependent on the old narratives. 

Are the concurrent media houses truly being blamed for reproducing the old content, and displaying lack of imagination, or it is a misplaced notion, is a matter that needs a critical analysis before arriving at a well-reasoned conclusion. 

Those harbouring the belief that modern producers of films, soap operas, music, and so forth, have started resorting to replicating the material produced in the past because there is a conspicuous void of inventiveness. Contemporary creators, due to their overwhelming reliance on technology in every sphere of life, cannot think out-of-the-box, forcing them to draw inspiration from something created some decades, or centuries ago, and adapt them to address the taste of the present audience.

Moreover, the current generation does not have any achievement to its credit, whereas their predecessors had to face struggles and catastrophic events, and so forth, that rendered them a stimulus to make something that portrayed the hardships facing humanity in ingenious ways. However, the current generation lacks first-hand experience, and thus, base their portrayals on formerly created material.

Nevertheless, despite the former view holding some substance, it lacks universal acceptance; the human mind is a huge repository of diverse experiences, feelings, and aspirations, and responds to surroundings in novel ways, showcased in various manifestations of art. Those accusing content creators of lacking ingenuity are themselves unable to absorb changes in presentations. To corroborate, movies and serials have moved from being dramatic to being more realistic: something which the older generation finds incompatible and only watches something that matches their expectations even if the plot is old.

In conclusion, there may be some simply emulating content produced in yesteryears; nonetheless, a majority of media organizations circumvent using old ideas, and tend to rely on their resourcefulness to formulate material that exhibits freshness. 

   

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. 

In today’s world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our artists such as musicians, painters and writers. What can the arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?

In today’s world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our artists such as musicians, painters and writers. What can the arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?

Even in an era, when technology has proliferated to every walk of life, art, in disparate forms continues to enjoy a considerable relevance; it can yield umpteen benefits and facilities to society, something out of bounds for the modern introductions. The following paragraphs shall elucidate these factors in detail.

Undeniably, art is central to entertainment, in all its manifestations, be it a book, a melody, a poem, and music, to name a few, which even though is brought to audiences with the help of technology, it is the only reason why one buys televisions, music systems, e-readers, tablets, and so on; without these all the modern devices and gadgets will have little significance. To exemplify, one watches television to either watch movies, soap operas, and musical concerts; if these were not there, these equipment would not have come into existence.

Similarly, apart from entertainment, this form of human expression is believed to be a pivotal medium, of developing and augmenting intuitiveness. Literature, paintings, and musical composition, to name a few , persuade humans to foster a broader perspective and innovative thought process; through these, they can learn to think deeply, becoming capable of discovering a fresh approach. 

Moreover, music, poetry, writings, and so on, have ceaselessly rendered a chief medium of moving information about culture, customs and traditions, across space and from one generation to the next. Mankind has been a witness to perpetuation of the knowledge of ways of life, accumulated over the eons - through books, legends, sculptures, and many more, informing the contemporary generations of their glorious past.  

In hindsight, art has always extended inspiration in a myriad of ways, giving them some entertaining moments and boosting their imagination. In fact almost all branches of science owe their source to art, in its various genres.

 

Music is appreciated in every major society and culture of the world today. Sone people believe that music is to be shared. Others, however, believe that music belongs to those who make it and should only be shared with their authorisation.

 

Music is appreciated in every major society and culture of the world today. Sone people believe that music is to be shared. Others, however, believe that music belongs to those who make it and should only be shared with their authorization.    

  

Why free access 

• Music is collective property with no one having proprietary rights, and inspires composers
• Allowing free access can fetch visibility to people 

Why not

• This could discourage creators of music 
• Creators enjoy the privilege of decision of to share or not to      

Music, in all its manifestations,  has always fascinated humans, but should it be rendered freely to all, or  should the composers enjoy the right to share it, is a matter deeply debated. 

There is a strong argument in favor of making this form of art available to everyone without  any restriction, which banks upon the fact that music is deeply entwined with the culture and  tradition it represents; thus, no one enjoys  a proprietary claim over it. When even the best of composers draw  inspiration from the  native genres of this art form and churn out melodious notes, why should it not be accessed by all without worrying about permissions to enjoy it. 

Another  perspective that looks at the positive  side of permitting free access to musical compositions. This can help creators gain visibility among the listeners, fetching them not  only work but also aiding in survival in the times when, every  day, new musicians  are surfacing on the horizon. Keeping creations obscure will be of little assistance,  and  will be forgotten by those,  who pay to listen because of fresh work being made public every day.    

Nevertheless, the critical opinion on this issue favors the practice of creators reserving the privilege of rendering free public access to their work. They have every right to enjoy the exploits of the investment  of their creativity and efforts,  in terms of monetary gains, and no one should object to this since musical  notes are  just another form of artistic work, like paintings and  sculpture, which sell for money.     

Overall, it may seem to some that discretion of sharing music should rest on the creators, I, nonetheless, feel that this art form should be allowed a free access by all: it will bring rich yields for producers.  

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.   

People who read for pleasure have better imagination and language skills than those who prefer watching TV. To what extent do you agree or disagree ?

People who read for pleasure have better imagination and language skills than those who prefer watching TV. To what extent do you agree or disagree ?

 

Ielts Essay Reading and Watching Television 

An eternal argument  has always raged about whether imagination and linguistic skills are bolstered by carrying out reading as a part of leisure, or by watching television. The partisan groups cite their reasons for support of their opinion. 

Reading has existed since time unknown, and has been more readily accepted by humans as a medium of stimulating  fascination and eventually visualization of written content. Written words are a formidable mean of fostering creative skills: the readers are inspired, or rather forced to develop a visual image of the content being accessed, which brings forth creativity, and people are able to comprehend exhaustive information and message being transferred by writers.

Moreover, skimming and scanning text in free time is known to be a good way of boosting lexical resource, and knowledge about expressing applying disparate sentence structures. When people read any text, they are not only able to develop an understanding of deeper nuances and subtleties, or contextual meaning of each word and phrase but also learn to express and convey their feelings and opinions using a variety of verbal forms of communication.

However, supporters of television fuelling imagination and strengthening linguistic skills propose that human brain tends to be more receptive to graphical content. When people watch TV programs, they avail an opportunity of not only looking at the things from the perspective of commentators or speakers, but also develop an independent opinion; thus broadening creativeness. Similarly, they also learn to use language effectively with aid of verbal and non-verbal content. 

To conclude, controversies apart, despite reading being a traditional method of encouraging imaginative and linguistic skills, television offers no less enriching experience. Thus, it will be quite unjust to say that television viewers are outshined by readers in the realms of creativity and language.  

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.