Please Grade My Task 2: Government Restrictions on Art

[Charmy]

The Task:
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 with this opinion.

My Essay:

Creative artists often express their own ideas in an artistic and unique way that are sometimes regarded as inappropriate by the general public. Government restrictions therefore come across as a solution to shape art into a more acceptable form. However, it is agreed that there should be no government restrictions on what artists do. This will be proven by analyzing the benefits of liberation in art as well as the consequences of abused government restrictions in general.

Firstly, liberating ways of expressing ideas of creative artists can often bring a profusion of artwork, which is a contributor to the development of general public’s critical thinking. Different artists can usually form their unique artsy ways, sometimes vulgar or lewd, of expressing art. This is, however, up to those who view the art to decide whether this art form can be accepted, or eliminated. Without government restrictions, all forms of art can get the equal chance of developing, and those surviving the scrutiny of art viewers are basically the naturally fittest art form. It is for this reason that what artists do should be without the government’s intervention.

Secondly, government restrictions can sometimes be used as a way of censoring information against a particular political group so as to make room for government propaganda, thus contributing to mind-controlling in society. Take the cultural revolution in China, for example. Due to government restrictions, anything against the chairman Mao was destroyed at that period of time, including a large quantity of ancient Chinese poems and valuable antiques that were viewed as getting in the way of the growth of the communist party. Abused government restrictions on art can certainly take a horrible toll on the whole nation. It is for this reason that there being no government restrictions on what artists do is supported.

After analyzing the both sides of there not being and being government restrictions, it is palpably felt that the argument for there being no government restrictions on what artists do has been proven. It is recommended that the freedom given to creative artists to express their ideas in whichever way they wish should be remained without the government’s intervention.

[saqibali]

Some sentences are not understandable.It seems that you are trying to copy word by word from your first language.

[Charmy]

Some sentences are not understandable.

Can you point those sentences out?

[charles205]

It is a good one. I felt it would be better to give a specific example in the first supporting para.

[dearjohn]

this is a good essay. however, as i see, the question is "to what extent". You should have presented both arguments and take side in the end. Can u check my essays as well? it would be nice to hear constructive criticisms from you.

[saqibali]

The Task:
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 with this opinion.

My Essay:

Creative artists often express their own ideas in an artistic and unique way that are sometimes regarded as inappropriate by the general public. Government restrictions therefore come across as a solution to shape art into a more acceptable form. However, it is agreed that there should be no government restrictions on what artists do. This will be proven by analyzing the benefits of liberation in art as well as the consequences of abused government restrictions in general.

Firstly, liberating ways of expressing ideas of creative artists can often bring a profusion of artwork, which is a contributor to the development of general public’s critical thinking. Different artists can usually form their unique artsy ways, sometimes vulgar or lewd, of expressing art. This is, however, up to those who view the art to decide whether this art form can be accepted, or eliminated. Without government restrictions, all forms of art can get the equal chance of developing, and those surviving the scrutiny of art viewers are basically the naturally fittest art form[Please check this sentence]. It is for this reason that what artists do should be without the government’s intervention.

Secondly, government restrictions can sometimes be used as a way of censoring information against a particular political group so as to make room for government propaganda, thus contributing to mind-controlling in society[Again, please check this]. Take the cultural revolution in China, for example. Due to government restrictions, anything against the chairman Mao was destroyed at that period of time, including a large quantity of ancient Chinese poems and valuable antiques that were viewed as getting in the way of the growth of the communist party[Check this sentence]. Abused government restrictions on art can certainly take a horrible toll on the whole nation. It is for this reason that there being no government restrictions on what artists do is supported.

After analyzing the both sides of there not being and being government restrictions, it is palpably felt that the argument for there being no government restrictions on what artists do has been proven. It is recommended that the freedom given to creative artists to express their ideas in whichever way they wish should be remained without the government’s intervention.

I am your well wisher, so take my feedback positive