Over the years, it is beleived that artists play an imparative role to represent social and cultural aspects by their innovative approach. Howerver, it is frequently discussed whether to give them full liberty, to transform their imagination into the real canvas of life, or restrict them partially. I opine there should be enough freedom to represent their artwork but without humiliating public's sentiments.
To embark on, there are numerous reason to allow individuals to express their artistic work. First of all, they can highlight enormous social evils and being them to the surface. Their undepth observation and interpertation will provide awareness to the public about ongoing circumstance on one hand, and due sympathces tp the sufferers. To illustrate, there are a number of renowned artist worldwide, who have stimulated human rights activists by portraying domestic violence, gender discrimination and other fiercing issues. Additionally, being non-constraint, they are able to develop masterpieces in stress free environment, which can be a source of recognition their country. This inturn, motivate youngsters to join this field and play their part to enhance cultural heritage of the nation.
On the other hand, poeple believe that everyone has to follow cartain morms to maintain supremacy of the prefession. Undue freedom to express any controvesial issue may result in violence and aggression in the community. For instance, Amir Khan a renowned produces, has had to face strong criticism after launching film on supersticious beliefs of indians. Furthermore, presenting very conflicting cases, without restrictions may embark similar behaviour among the youngsters. Hence, every demonstration at public level must be sensored.
To conclude, limitizing the presenter will hold an obstacle in awareness and acknowledgment of national assets. However, they must be retional in their expressions to sustain peace of the society.
Over the years, it is
beleived
that artists play an
imparative
role to represent social and cultural aspects by their innovative approach.
Howerver
, it is
frequently
discussed whether to give them full liberty, to transform their imagination into the real canvas of life, or restrict them
partially
. I opine there should be
enough
freedom to represent their artwork
but
without humiliating public's sentiments.
To embark on, there are numerous reason to
allow
individuals to express their artistic work.
First of all
, they can highlight enormous social evils and being them to the surface. Their
undepth
observation and
interpertation
will provide awareness to the public about ongoing circumstance on one hand, and due
sympathces
tp
the sufferers. To illustrate, there are a number of renowned artist worldwide, who have stimulated human rights activists by portraying domestic violence, gender discrimination and other
fiercing
issues.
Additionally
, being non-constraint, they are able to develop masterpieces in
stress
free environment, which can be a source of recognition their country. This
inturn
, motivate youngsters to
join
this field and play their part to enhance cultural heritage of the nation.
On the other hand
,
poeple
believe that everyone
has to
follow
cartain
morms
to maintain supremacy of the
prefession
. Undue freedom to express any
controvesial
issue may result in violence and aggression in the community.
For instance
, Amir Khan a renowned
produces
, has had to face strong criticism after launching film on
supersticious
beliefs of
indians
.
Furthermore
, presenting
very
conflicting cases, without restrictions may embark similar
behaviour
among the youngsters.
Hence
, every demonstration at public level
must
be
sensored
.
To conclude
,
limitizing
the presenter will hold an obstacle in awareness and acknowledgment of national assets.
However
, they
must
be
retional
in their expressions to sustain peace of the society.