Art and literary forms, in the opinion of some, are instruments to initiate social reforms whereas there are others who feel that they are personal expressions meant for entertaining people.

• How right it is to say that art and literary forms are instruments of change?
• How do you look at the second view?
Essay 055
It has always been a controversy whether art and literary forms have some social roles, or they are just for entertaining people. I for one am of the opinion that they are very much instruments of change and entertainers as well.

Let me see how right it is to say that they are organs of change. The primary thing is most of the art and literary genres are capable of making people think, react and reform themselves. History has innumerable examples to prove this. Let me cite a few of them. The Problem Plays of G. B. Shaw, the Comedies of William Shakespeare, comic strips of R. K. Narayan, satires and films on the follies and foibles of modern man have been able to make substantial changes in society. Needless to say, human society owes much to art and literary forms.

However, there is no denying the fact that art and literature are personal expressions. But, are they just meant for entertaining people? I would rather disagree, and I am tend to argue that all these forms have several different roles. Entertaining people is just one among them. In this respect, it is right to say almost all art and literary forms are both reforming and entertaining. But some of them; like some dance genres, music, paintings, sculpting and the like, may not be able to make social changes as such. They are entertainers per se, so to say.

Let me conclude the discussion emphasizing the fact that all art and literary forms are personal expressions capable of entertaining people. But most of them are instruments of change. So, branding them as mere entertainers is unfair.

265 Words
Ajaypeesdoc
18.2.011