Artists need a certain amount of freedom to develop their creativity. some people think that artists should have total freedom to express any thoughts and ideas. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.3

Art is considered as a feasible tool in expressing complicated matters of the society. Artists should be given freedom to some extent under which they can build their ideas although few argue that they should be allowed fully to express their art. Despite the few negative influences they might bring in some youngsters, Its benefits to the society far outweigh the negative impact. Artistry can encourage the pessimistic influences mainly to the youth, because it can be a powerful way to portray any delicate matter into wrong directions. For instance, this happens when singers and actors promote alcohol in their songs, which may lead many youngsters towards drinking. As a result, If such negativity through art is promoted, then it may divert many teenagers to astray. However, not every singer or actor promotes such things, so young adults should look up to the right celebs to follow. On the other side, art can display the reality to the people, as it can strongly depict the issues such as poverty, inequality and atrocities. For example, if the documentary is made on the dwellers of the slums, it can create awareness among people about their living conditions, Which can highlight such situation too The public and the government. Rather than staying uninformed, the government can allow funds for such people. Therefore, art can be beneficial to the society's development, if only their creativity is freely exhibit. In conclusion, While artists may bring a minor negative effect to the youth as they showcase drinking in songs, But it can positively reflect the neglected problems of the society such as poverty. So I believe that, it outweighs the advantages to society against any drawbacks it might bring.