T2's one more sample
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:10 pm
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.
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.
