creative artists should always be given the fredom to exprss

[deepa]

This is my first essay..i need suggestions to improve my confidence level..

There is no doubt that exquisite art forms are born if the artists who create them enjoy complte freedom in their creativity.It is obvious that the masterpieces of legendary artists are made without any government interferences.This essay argues that creative minds should be given freedom so that their creativity is not compromised.
To begin with, it is important for the artists to have independenc for crating their best.For instance a musician can compose a good symphony when there is no boundaries or limitations.In addition to this it is believed that the arts are a form of communication between the artists and the people.Various art forms like paintings sculptures music and motion pictures convey messages and reach out to public and influences them.
on the other hand , restrivtions and restraints from the part of the state wouldl limit the artists their freedom of expression.Althpugh some people argue that arts are the reflection of the culture of any society, it should not impart wrong messages to the public.For example films or book which promote crime and violence should be sensored by the government bodies.However this should not destroy thd piece of art.
On balance i tend to believe that artists should have complete independence in their creations to produce better arts .However any form oof vulgarity or violence is to be reduced to minimum by the state restraints without affecting the quality of the creations.

[chaiguy]

There is no doubt that exquisite art forms can only be born if their creators enjoy complete freedom during the production process. It's obvious that the (<<< you can change 'the' to 'all' here) masterpieces of legendary artists have been made without any government interference (<<<remove the 's').

This essay argues that creative minds should be given (you could add 'total' here to reinforce your argument) freedom so that their creativity levels are not compromised.

To begin with, it is vital for the artists to have total independence when creating their best (add 'work' here).

For instance, a musician can only compose a top-quality symphony if there are no boundaries or limitations. In addition to this, it's believed that these arts are a form of communication between the artists and the people.

Various art forms - such as paintings, sculptures, music and motion pictures - convey messages to influence their audiences.

On (capital 'O') the other hand, restrictions and restraints from the (remove 'part of the' here) state would limit the artists' freedom of expression.

Alternatively, some people may argue that these arts are the reflection of culture and society, it should not impart inappropriate messages to the public. For example, films and books which promote crime and violence should be censored by the governing bodies. However, steps must also be taken to ensure the piece of art isn't destroyed.

On balance, I believe artists should have complete independence in their creations so their work can reach its full potential. Although, any extreme forms of vulgarity or violence must be examined by the state restraints. (End the paragraph here. No need to 'waffle' (repeating points just to build your word count))

A good point with valid arguments, however, next time I would suggest including some examples of art which have kept their beauty despite the fact that some people may be offended - a good one to use would be Michelangelo's David.

[deepa]

Thank u so much for ur valuable corrections