Question

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?

Model Answer

Modern art is often controversial, especially when touching upon issues such as sex, race, or politics. At times, there is a danger that it crosses the line and becomes offensive. As a result, some people think there should be limits placed upon artistic freedom. Personally, I feel that art should only be censored in extreme circumstances, such as when an artwork is derogatory towards a protected class of people.

In general, artists should be free to express their ideas without fear of interference. It is important that art is able to push the boundaries of what is acceptable in order to challenge accepted ideas. During the twentieth century, the Western world was becoming more secular, and many artists reflected this in their work by subverting established religious iconography. In such circumstances, I feel it is correct that artists are allowed to produce controversial works as they are symptomatic of a wider debate in society.

This does not mean, however, that artists should be able to say whatever they want in the name of artistic freedom. Just as limits are placed on everyday speech, artists should be required to obey certain rules. For example, an artwork should not be needlessly offensive to a particular ethnicity or another minority group. People might argue that it is a matter of interpretation, but in my opinion, it is easy to identify when an artwork is discriminatory. The dissemination of such images should be restricted by law.

In conclusion, artists should be given significant leeway to express their ideas, but when those ideas are harmful to minority groups, then the government should step in.

(269 words)