-
clawhammer
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:08 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
PLEASE RATE:
"Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government
must place no restrictions on the art that is produced."
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Develop your position by giving specific reasons and/or
examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
The concept of Arts itself is abstract, with many definitions given for centruries that has tried to clearly define it. While the exact idea of arts can be sketchy, the fact that arts require absolute freedom is of lesser ambiguity. I certainly agree to the fact that production of anything valuable can only be made if no restrictions on the art that is produced is placed by the government.
Art primarily deals with creativity, and creativity is heavily dependant on the freedom of mind and soul. Artists of all kinds involve in independent thinking, and this process leads to creation. History tells us people who revolutionied arts had very little, if any, restrictions to what they created. For example, if Shakespeare was born in a civilization that did not allow plays to be written, or if Leanardo da Vinci wasn't allowed to have drawing classes at school, the world of arts would have been very different.
It is also difficult to come up with a process to restrict something that was not even created before. For example, according to some religions, humans are forbidden to try making creations; this idea once questioned if painting was a practice for humans immitate god. However, people certainly do not take painters or movie directors, as people who can do god's work, but they only envy the creators of such arts for looking at the world in a different approach.
In addition, any barrier directly contradicts the idea of evaluating arts. The value of any creation in arts is highly correlated to how different the creation is. For example, Apple, one of the leading tech companies that brands the idea of creativity and artistic value and provides a bold statement that says "Think different". It is clearly understandable how the world of arts honor difference and the impact it can have in the value of any form of arts. Therefore, anything that is there to limit or define what is supposed to be produced is not only a barrier but also an environment that can decay talents of artists.
Arts is an evolving subject, its definitions change with eveyr creation, and the only proven way to promote arts is to allow anything. The immagination should be the only limitation in thw world of arts, and as such, any goverment who wants to support arts should have no restrictions to what can be produced.[/b]
"Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government
must place no restrictions on the art that is produced."
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Develop your position by giving specific reasons and/or
examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
The concept of Arts itself is abstract, with many definitions given for centruries that has tried to clearly define it. While the exact idea of arts can be sketchy, the fact that arts require absolute freedom is of lesser ambiguity. I certainly agree to the fact that production of anything valuable can only be made if no restrictions on the art that is produced is placed by the government.
Art primarily deals with creativity, and creativity is heavily dependant on the freedom of mind and soul. Artists of all kinds involve in independent thinking, and this process leads to creation. History tells us people who revolutionied arts had very little, if any, restrictions to what they created. For example, if Shakespeare was born in a civilization that did not allow plays to be written, or if Leanardo da Vinci wasn't allowed to have drawing classes at school, the world of arts would have been very different.
It is also difficult to come up with a process to restrict something that was not even created before. For example, according to some religions, humans are forbidden to try making creations; this idea once questioned if painting was a practice for humans immitate god. However, people certainly do not take painters or movie directors, as people who can do god's work, but they only envy the creators of such arts for looking at the world in a different approach.
In addition, any barrier directly contradicts the idea of evaluating arts. The value of any creation in arts is highly correlated to how different the creation is. For example, Apple, one of the leading tech companies that brands the idea of creativity and artistic value and provides a bold statement that says "Think different". It is clearly understandable how the world of arts honor difference and the impact it can have in the value of any form of arts. Therefore, anything that is there to limit or define what is supposed to be produced is not only a barrier but also an environment that can decay talents of artists.
Arts is an evolving subject, its definitions change with eveyr creation, and the only proven way to promote arts is to allow anything. The immagination should be the only limitation in thw world of arts, and as such, any goverment who wants to support arts should have no restrictions to what can be produced.[/b]
