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.
GRE Issue Essay: Government Funding Of The Arts Is 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. 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."
It is here that the government’s role comes into picture. It can be easily observed that in a time when computer and technology has completely changed the outlook of people, they hardly find time to indulge into arts. We hardly find anyone talking about the great artists like Leonardo Da Vinci who was a renowned artist and the creator of painting like “Mona Lisa” and “The Last Supper." There aren’t many who show interests in handicrafts, pottery-making, etc., which can be extremely useful for people to escape from the daily stressful life.
Hence, in order to engender an interest amongst the common people and to draw their attention towards the creative side of a human being, it is a responsibility of the government to promote these art forms. The organization of art galleries and art exhibitions should be arranged for the people to appreciate all forms of the art. These would also help the common man, who otherwise is an ignorant being, to access such art forms and appreciate such work.
Apart from this there is a convention that people usually believe that all the people who pursue such professions are not that well paid. This is a reality. Apart from a few well known artists, like M.F Hussain, there are very few people who can earn a good living from these professions. The arrangement of such exhibitions shall also help such struggling artists to gain popularity and earn a handsome living.
Unless an artist is not happy and satisfied, it becomes difficult for him to produce wonderful art pieces. The funding of the art forms shall also cater to the well being of such artist. As a result of this, we will definitely get some exceptional art pieces worthy of everyone’s praise and appreciation.
Many people believe that such funding will threaten the integrity of Art. One must not forget that the question of maintaining the integrity will come into picture only when such art forms will retain and flourish. The first step is saving all such art forms from the abyss of obscurity and darkness. Before people forget what a wonderful and pleasing effect such art forms can have on a mind that is stressed from the humdrum and boring work, it is very crucial to help these art forms to survive and proliferate.
Regarding your comment below, I am sorry to say that the wrong version (which is to say, the right version) or your essay was deleted, so I must respond to this truncated version, and do so under the assumption that I'm missing the introduction, which is not such a big deal.
In this version of your essay, you identify three issues: 1) people are not very interested in art; 2) artists don't appear to earn a good living; 3) happy artists are productive artists.
I'm not sure of the truth of the third point, or the possible role of government funding in securing the happiness of artists (you don't clarify that role, which I suppose you ought to do because securing happiness is distinct from alleviating misery). The first two points seem more reasonable to me.
The first point addresses the claim that government funding is necessary to ensure that the arts can be available to all people. Note that you don't consider other (private) means of achieving the same end. Is it not possible for museums and galleries to survive without government support?
The second point addresses the role of funding (by way of government sponsored exhibitions; it is not clear to me why you limit yourself to the consideration of that type of funding) in securing a living for artists, which presumably is intended to relate to the original claim about how funding can help to ensure the arts can flourish. You need to make that point explicitly, however (for example, by claiming that the arts can only flourish if artists can make a good living).
The essay as a whole, finally, is a bit one-sided. Although the last paragraph deals with the question of the possible threat to the integrity of the arts, it does so only briefly and superficially. You explain (rightly) that "the question of maintaining the integrity [of the arts] will come into [the] picture only when such art forms ... flourish." That's a good point, but it shouldn't be taken to allow you to ignore thereafter the issue of integrity. What is the value, for instance, of the arts flourishing if they serve as propaganda for the current political regime? It might be advisable to tackle the question of integrity by considering alternatives to government sponsorship. If the alternative to government funding is private sponsorship (e.g., corporate sponsorship) or selling art to the public, for example, then it might be worth considering which of these alternatives least threatens the integrity of art. Might the question depend in part on the nature and motivations of the government for instance? Are there ways in which the marketplace or corporate sponsorship might also threaten the integrity of the arts? And so on.