1) Corrected:

I totally agree with the opinion that creative artists should not be restricted by government in any way. Artists need unlimited space, freedom and time for their work to thrive, otherwise society would never see the results of some of the greatest artists` work, which are part of our culture, heritage and history.

Restrictions can ruin the realisation of the whole artist’s idea, like a bird being in captivity would defenitely refuse to sing as beautifully as it did before, and this reluctance is not the act of stubborn creature, but the result of discouraging restrictions. Of course a true artist will find the way to create regardless of conditions or circumstances, but it won`t be pure art and the artist will be void of further development in terms of art.

If all kind of art were regulated by authorities we would never have been able to admire outstanding forms of architecture, paintings, works of literature, films etc.  Governments should give every possibility to artists to create and only observe the work in case of having to restrict the audience. I mean, some arts are too progressive to be shown to children or works may also demonstrate some kind of moral characteristics which might be considered unsuitable for society. Concerning this latter point, I believe private clubs for connoisseur or lay people themselves should be set up so as to decide what art is acceptable to them.

In order to preserve the natural development and purity of art  the artists should not be bothered by any limits government may set. And government in its turn should not stand in art`s way. In the end it is society arrives at a conclusion whether the art is worthy of appreciation.

2) Original:

I totally agree with the opinion that creative artists should not be restricted by government in any way. Artists need limitless space, freedom and time for their work to thrive, otherwise society would not ever see the results of greatest artists` work, which are the part of our culture and history.

Any restrictions ruin the realisation of the whole artists` idea, like a bird being in captivity would defenitely refuse to sing as beautifully as before, and this reluctance is not an act of stubborn creature, but a result of the discouraging restrictions. Of course a true artist will find the way to create under whichever conditions and circumstances are, but it won`t be a pure art and the artist is fettered to further development in terms of art.

If all kind of art were regulated by authorities we would have never admired an outstanding forms of architecture, paintings, work of literature, films etc.  Government should give any possibility to artists to create and only observe the work in case to restrict the audience. I mean, some arts are too early to be shown to children or works may also demonstrate some kind of ammorality which might be considered unhealthy for society. According to this assumption I believe there may be set up private clubs for connoisseur or people themselves decide what art is acceptable for them.

In order to preserve the natural development and purity of art  the artists should not be bothered by any limits government may set. And government in its turn should not be on art`s way. And in the end society makes a conclusion whether the art is worth appreciation.