Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Is Government Funding Of The Arts Necessary To Ensure That The Arts Can Flourish? - With A Free Essay Review
Some People Believe That Government Funding Of The Arts Is Necessary To Ensure That The Arts Can Flourish And Be Available To All People. Others Believe That Government Funding Of The Arts Threatens The Integrity Of The Arts
When it comes to the government funding of the arts, some people argue that funding of the arts from government is beneficial since it can ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people, while others oppose government funding, claiming that it will threaten the integrity of the arts. From my perspective, whether government funding is salutary to society or not depends on the way government funds arts and for what purposes.
First, if funds from government can finance those artists who are talented but very poor, artistic field is likely to thrive. Throughout history, there are a large number of brilliant artists who would execute more masterpieces if they were free from poverty. Without worrying too much about their living, these geniuses can commit themselves to creating great works. One of the most eminent artists Van Gogh is an excellent [example] of this point. Van Gogh [was] impecunious in the course of his life and sometimes he could not even pay for a meal. Under the circumstances of extreme penury and grief, Van Gogh eventually committed suicide at the age of 37. If the government can finance these artists like Van Gogh, making them live better, these gifted but poor artists can thus pay much more attention to their fields, producing more fascinating works of art. Therefore, in this case, government funding leads arts to prosper.
In addition, funds can also be used to establish museums or hold art exhibitions for citizens for free, which is likely to enable more people available to arts. As things stand now, increasing people like going to cinemas or clubs for entertainment. Apart from that, due to the lack of effort to propagate the value and beauty of arts, fewer people pay a visit to museums or art exhibitions when they are free. Without populace’s attention and involvement, arts is bound to lose motivations to flourish. For instance, Peking opera, one of the traditional arts of China, are disappearing in modern China partly because government does not afford enough funds for actors to innovate it and show its distinctively traditional value before citizens.
However, funding arts by government will inevitably have detrimental consequences, such as destroying the integrity of arts, if government takes advantage of funding to deliberately control the growth of arts. Integrity for arts means unique value and independency. Maybe, some artists will create works to cater for government for the sake of getting funds or maybe, government will funds what it like, indirectly suppressing some valuable and profound works which jar with what current government advocates. These actions definitely undermine arts’ integrity. Consequently, in these cases, arts will blight instead of flourishing by means of financing.
All the evidence put forward above support an unshakable conclusion that if the government uses funds to patronize those poor artists with talents and makes more people available to arts by building museums, arts can flourish. On the contrary, if government controls growth of arts intentionally by funding, it will threaten the integrity of arts.
Your second paragraph argues that if the government provides financial support to poor artists, then the arts can flourish because such artists will be able to focus on their work. That's a reasonable argument, though perhaps it takes you too long to make it. You also seem to trying to impress the reader with the range of your vocabulary, which is probably unnecessary and possibly risky if you do not possess expert command of the language. Your second argument is also reasonable, though the point is obscured a little by language problems ("to enable more people available to arts" is basically meaningless). And the same should be said of the final argument. "Integrity for arts means unique value and independancy" is a poorly worded definition. You want to say something like "the integrity of the arts depends on its being free from interference." Again, it's a reasonable argument, though one could probably complicate it further if one wished (e.g., by comparing the disadvantages of government funding to those of other sources of funding; or by looking at the way that artists have often been able to free themselves from the interference of those who support them in creative ways). Your biggest problem here, however, is the number of errors in the essays. That's not the kind of problem we can address here, but it is a problem that you need to address by continuing to work on English grammar, syntax, and usage and by reading extensively in English.