Can Art Be Made by Everyone or Talented People

Both views are discussed and the introduction presents artistic ability as both natural and teachable. However, the everyday-creativity examples need a clearer link to making art, and the final restriction on effective teaching leaves the position insufficiently reconciled.

The essay is paragraphed with a recognizable progression and basic linkers, yet transitions are mechanical and some sentences within paragraphs follow illogically, so the reader must work to follow the argument.

The essay attempts less common vocabulary and idiom, but misuses such as “pent-up his/her emotions”, “a cup of tea” for capability and “conducive” without a stated outcome reduce precision. Other expressions, such as “all and sundry”, are acceptable but informal.

A mix of structures is attempted, including conditionals and relative clauses, but errors such as the opening body-paragraph fragment, the unfinished “either” construction and “got failed” reduce clarity. The main message remains understandable despite these structural problems.

Both perspectives are recognisable, but the discussion shifts towards participation, recognition and exceptional quality rather than consistently addressing ability. The writer favours broad participation, though the precise answer to whether everyone can create art remains implicit.

The four-paragraph organisation is clear, but links within the second body paragraph need attention: the move from affluence to repetitive work is unexplained, and Thus does not establish how self-expression follows from that claim.

Vocabulary is flexible and mostly precise, including phrases like 'hard-wired' and 'a showcase of skill', though occasional awkward forms like 'widespreadness' appear.

Complex noun phrases, relative clauses and concessive structures show range. Control is generally good, but the sentence about affluent backgrounds joins independent clauses with commas around as such.

The opinion that everyone can create art is clear and sustained, with relevant discussion of expression and artistic quality. However, the opposing view is presented mainly as talent making creation easier, rather than as talent being essential, and the final judgement about humility is unsupported.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, with only occasional mechanical linking.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, with natural collocations such as naturally gifted and unique expression, alongside some repetition of key phrases.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, though comma splices and some awkward clause combinations are noticeable but rarely impede meaning.

Both perspectives receive relevant discussion, but the training argument does not fully address exclusive special ability. The conclusion favours skill development without clearly resolving whether everyone can create art.

The response progresses logically with clear paragraphing, appropriate contrastive linkers, and effective referencing, with only occasional mechanical transitions such as the formulaic opening of the conclusion.

Vocabulary is flexible and mostly precise, with natural collocations like creative vision, fundamentals of rhythms and melodies, and distinguish your creation, though a few phrases such as ordinary mediocrities and innate in some art forms are slightly awkward.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, including conditionals, relative clauses, and parallel constructions, with errors that are minor and rarely impede meaning.

The position is clear and well-supported, but the view that everyone can make art is not directly developed on its own terms, so coverage of both views is uneven and only partially addresses the full task.

Ideas progress logically across coherent paragraphs with effective cohesive devices such as referencing and example markers, though the link between the first body paragraph and the view it is meant to represent is loose at points.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural use of less common items like 'prerogative of the gifted', 'toil away', and 'stirring masterpieces', and errors are rare.

A wide range of structures is used with strong control, including complex subordinate and concessive clauses, with only minimal, non-impeding slips such as 'hand eye coordination' punctuation.