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 opi

Art is the mirror of an artist`s soul and mind, and limitations cast a shadow on that mirror. It means to portray a new issue or an old one from a new point of view, so art is the ability of creation. No creative art will appear or live long while governmental restrictions are governing. However, absolute freedom will be problematic when society is not artistically mature. Hence, the government should act only as a regulatory body who tries to keep a balance among different sections of the society.

First and foremost, governmental restraints will result in partiality of artworks` assessment and exhibition. Under this circumstance, the arts take priority depending on the extent of their adherence to the rules and social standards not their innovation and artistic value. Thus, a poor diversity of the arts will limit artistic arena of a country that affects both people and artists. The repetitive pattern of artworks makes people uninterested; fewer writings are read since no various content have been introduced and fewer artistic events are welcomed since copied productions have exhausted audiences. On the other hand, artists will look for a new channel to present their ingenious perspectives. Immigration is mostly the only option which can lead to a decline in artworks quality due to economic or mental problems of immigration. Similarly, inside the country, the quality of art education will fall because bounded artistic minds are in the educational positions. This is a crisis situation where art growth is a matter of profound concern.

Furthermore, artists have a duty of illustrating truths. They are responsible to make impression, inform all or give a solution about different types of issues like beauty, discrimination, pleasure, pain or everything existing within the heart of the society. In effect, every creative art has a unique message from society to society. For instance, an Iranian photographer took innovatory photos during Iran-Iraq war including Iranian baby soldiers and thoughtful scenes of violence and kindness between two parties. His pictures were heavily censored in his home country by government that made him to publish them in the second country after immigration. The end of the war is thirty one years old by now but as time passes every single photo of him is still clarifying new aspects of war; aspects which are being denied by authorities or are being forgotten by people. If this original mind had not been allowed to be in the front line, the real face of war would never become revealed.

Benefiting society, art also has a dangerous face. It can be offensive to some while being inspired to others. Governments might prefer applying pressure and constraint on arts to prevent any probable disturbance or criticism of itself. Definitely, this is not an occasion on which a modern society can be based. Instead, peaceful remedies are necessary to be used: artists should clarify their purpose to all, especially those of whom that is predicted to take the artwork as insult; governments must be aware that the arts are going to be exhibited in where and to whom and provide security for everyone; and each part of the society need to be mature enough in order to understand that freedom of expression is an essential right for every individual. A modern society has deeply realized that the best reply to an artwork is a corresponding artwork.

To conclude, governmental restrictions kill both creativity and art, in contrast, absolute freedom causes anarchy. In order to neither confine inventiveness nor making disorder, governments would be better behaving as a regulator who promises freedom of expression for all in safety and put its effort into growing awareness of whole society.