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.
Government Funding Of The Arts Is Necessary - With A Free Essay Review
Government Funding Of The Arts Is Necessary To Ensure That The Arts Can Flourish
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. Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Government funding of arts is necessary because many people might be highly talented but they don’t have money to make more paintings or exhibit them. In those cases Government should provide funds to those artists to ensure that the art can flourish. Making art available to all people can be considered in two ways, first many institutions must provide art classes for free or at an affordable rate so it would be beneficial for the new aspirants as well the talented artists who can earn by teaching. Next more art exhibitions must be put up where the artists can display freely and people can buy artworks at cheaper rates. Entrance fees for art exhibitions must be made free. But on the other hand, many people can misuse it for money. So the government should set up organisations which should analyse the true talents before providing funds. In that way the integrity of arts would not be disturbed.
“Arts” refers to a wide arena covering painting, music, poetry, dance, handicrafts and so on. On the whole all these require creativity. Not all people are blessed with creativity. So those artists who have more talents and could not flourish just because of money must be helped by the government. Vincent Van Gogh was a great artist and without him the world would have never had the “The Starry Night”. Despite his countless chef d’oeuvres he only sold one painting in his lifetime. Claude Monet is another famous French artist. His works were not recognized. Now he is famous but he lived in penury throughout his lifetime. So these cases show clearly that real talents need funding by the Government.
Government should start new projects for supporting various fields in arts: arts education, dance, folk and traditional arts, literature, media arts, museums, music and opera. The Government should grant individual fellowships in literature to creative writers of exceptional talent in the areas of prose and poetry. NEA is a good example of this. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that offers support and funding for projects exhibiting artistic excellence. The NEA is dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established, bringing the arts to all Americans and providing leadership in arts education.
Arts are rich sources of culture. So, the government must provide adequate funds for maintaining the art museums and entrance at art museums should be made free. Funding for arts will bring good returns to the government by improving tourism and research on old art works and in turn improving the economy. Also the number and the quality of art exhibitions held should be improved. Government must set up exhibitions where highly talented artists can put up their exhibits for free. This way they can encourage the artists as well as art lovers. Poor Man’s Art Gallery at Missouri, United States is a good example of this. They sell painting at cheaper rates and exhibit for free.
So, definitely Government must provide funds for arts to flourish but, looking at the other side, the free flow of funds might motivate some people to use it in a wrong way. In that case the integrity of arts might be disturbed. In order to avoid this, the government must look into all factors which constitute the term “integrity”; that is, the logical soundness, completeness and genuineness of any artwork must be examined carefully before funding. By these measures funds to deserving artworks and artists can be made possible.
I think you do a reasonably good job of making your positive case for the funding of the arts. The general form of the argument here would be that, with the exception of the works of the stars of the art world, many of whom are dead, it is very difficult to sell works of art and so if we want art to flourish, we ought to subsidize artists in one way or another. Your essay gives examples of artists who struggled to make ends meet, which is a good thing to do, but I'm not sure you fully elaborate the significance of your examples. For instance, you note that Van Gogh was poor and without him, there would be no "The Starry Night," but of course the painting does exist, despite the artist's lack of governmental support. In any case, aside from giving examples, I think you also ought to try to articulate the general form of the argument.
I think your argument about the relationship between the integrity of the arts and government funding, by contrast, is too vague. You say that "the free flow of funds might motivate some people to use [those funds] in the wrong way. It's not clear what you mean here by "the wrong way" or how people using funds the wrong way would threaten the integrity of the arts. Presumably the concern here is that if artists depend on the government for funding they might be inclined to try to create the type of art which they think tends to get funded, and in such a case the free development of the arts would be inhibited.