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?
Nowadays, there is an increasingly common belief amongst people that requires complete freedom for creative artists to interpret whatever they want. According to them even governments must not restrict them from what they are willing to do. However, I tend to totally disagree with this point.
The first thing which induces my disagreement is that there will be tremendous chaos that may be very unlikely to be controlled, if authorities do not intervene in artists’ affairs. There is no guarantee that these artists will not contradict widely admitted humanitarian rules. For instance, what if the artist has got tendency to racism and agitates it? Our societies are very vulnerable against rule models and in most cases form public opinion under influence of such artists. Who should restrict them from this if not government?
Another fact that impels me to vote against this point is frivolity of today’s singers, actors or artists telling in total. Their half naked performance evidences predominance of their frivolity over their moral and etiquette. Take words they use both on the scene and in streets as an example. There is no sense of coherence, cohesion and not to speak about logic. I completely say no if that means that we should foster our children with “flashy slangs”
By way of conclusion, I believe that artists are people who should be under control of government. Of course, it does not mean deep intrusion to artist’s private life telling which beverage to drink and which not to. This may look like North Korean atmosphere of governing. Though, I do not support the idea of 100% freedom for artists.
T2's one more sample
-
David.IELTS.Examiner
- IELTS Examiner
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 4:34 am
Re: T2's one more sample
Hello!
There are a couple of interesting points in your essay, but ...
1. You ask what would happen if an artist produced racist material ... but then you don't actually answer the question.
2. Do performers dress half-naked because of THEIR morals or because their fans expect it? (In other words, are these artists a reflection of our morals or their own?)
3. If logic and coherence were requirements for speaking, I can guarantee that most people in the world would be banned from communicating immediately. 'Tom and Jerry' would never be broadcast again!
If the government controls the artists, that doesn't solve any of the problems you have mentioned. There are numerous racist governments around the world. The Chinese government strictly controls TV, but you can still see revealing costumes. (And who defines what is 'revealing' anyway? Beyonce or a Saudi imam?) As for governments and logic and coherence ... PLEASE!
Grammar and vocabulary are reasonable, but not used to create a coherent argument.
All the best,
David
There are a couple of interesting points in your essay, but ...
1. You ask what would happen if an artist produced racist material ... but then you don't actually answer the question.
2. Do performers dress half-naked because of THEIR morals or because their fans expect it? (In other words, are these artists a reflection of our morals or their own?)
3. If logic and coherence were requirements for speaking, I can guarantee that most people in the world would be banned from communicating immediately. 'Tom and Jerry' would never be broadcast again!
If the government controls the artists, that doesn't solve any of the problems you have mentioned. There are numerous racist governments around the world. The Chinese government strictly controls TV, but you can still see revealing costumes. (And who defines what is 'revealing' anyway? Beyonce or a Saudi imam?) As for governments and logic and coherence ... PLEASE!
Grammar and vocabulary are reasonable, but not used to create a coherent argument.
All the best,
David
Re: T2's one more sample
Shokir wrote: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?
Nowadays, there is an increasingly common belief amongst people that creative artists should have complete freedom to interpret whatever they want. According to these artists, even governments must not restrict them from what they are willing to do. However, I tend to totally disagree with this point.
The first thing I disagree with is that there will be tremendous chaos that may be very difficult to be controlled if authorities do not intervene in artists’ affairs. There is no guarantee that these artists will not contradict widely admitted humanitarian rules. For instance, what if the artist has racist beliefs and pushes a racist agenda? Our societies are very vulnerable to role models, and in most cases form public opinion under the influence of such artists. Who should restrict them from this if not the government?
Another fact that impels me to vote against this point is the frivolity of today’s singers, actors or artists. Their half naked performances evidences their frivolity over their morals and basic decency. Consider the words they use both during performances and when they are not on show as an example. There is no sense of coherence, cohesion and not to speak about logic.(<--I don't understand this sentence.) I completely say no if that means that we should foster our children with “flashy slangs”(<--I don't understand this sentence.)
By way of conclusion, I believe that artists are people who should be under the control of the government. Of course, this does not mean deep intrusion into the artist’s private life, deciding which beverage they can drink and what to avoid. This may look like a North Korean atmosphere of governing. I do not support the idea of 100% freedom for artists.