Prompt: 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. Ċ Do advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

There is no doubt that creativity is linked strongly to freedom, and artists should be able to represent their proper ideas. While some people believe that they should have all the freedom they need to express themselves, others argue that this should be limited. In this essay, I will explore both arguments, and I will support with examples why I tend to believe that the drawbacks of having total freedom override the advantages. Ċ Firstly, the main benefit is that the more freedom artists can have, the more ingenious the piece of art can be. Moreover, art's figures more acclaimed are those which are anonymous because they represent hidden parts of human's behaviour. For example, one of the most famous anonymous artists is called Bansky, and his paintings have become popular among citizens. If this author's name had been public, he would not have the ability to represent everything the way he does. Consequently, the result of his work would not be as important as it is. Ċ However, one serious disadvantage is that the right of ones begins where the others' right ends. Furthermore, we live in a society where we have to follow some rules, which makes everything works correctly. For instance, we can not have total immunity to express ourselves because our actions could hurt someones' feeling, and this sort of behaviour can be dangerous. If we start not following community rules, we will not be able to control future human's actions. As a result, the concept of community as we know it nowadays could disappear in the future. Ċ To conclude, while I accept that freedom is an important part of both creativity and artist lifestyle because it allows them to express freely. I firmly believe that we need to have a standard limit in order to respect every human's feelings and ideas.