So far, art has not only served for human entertainment and enjoyment but also been a means of conveying countless messages to the public in a wide and effective way. In this day and age of media coverage, there is a heated discussion on whether artists should be allowed to freely their ideas without governmental restrictions, or if artistic activities need to be more tightly controlled by authority’s regulations. Thus, this essay will examine both views of this problems before reaching a concrete conclusion.
To begin with, art reflects the current society’s circumstances and expresses people’s hope. Take Animal Farm as an example; the book demonstrates another point of view about the cycle power and dictatorship. Secondly, art continuously evolves alongside societal development. For instance, graffiti, and rap, … would not exist if there was a restriction on how an artist can express their ideas. Last but not least, the restriction on this issue is impossible. For example, government cannot restrict their citizen access to the “colour revolution”.
In contrast, art needs to be restricted in some way. This is because art can be a form of propaganda. Nevertheless, there should be a law corridor for restricting some extremist artistic tendencies. because art can be used to cause social instability. For instance, the media has contributed to the collapse of many country . Furthermore, the restriction on how artists can express their ideas guaranteed the development of art. Since there has been an increase in a variety of art that offend social norms.
In conclusion, a balance between restriction and freedom in artistic expression is crucial, as they both play a mutual role in fostering creativity and maintaining societal standards.