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.
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.
I align more closely with the first statement that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to people because many artists usually do not make a lot of money to support their persuits, and suffer from financial problems before they become famous, and many masterpieces are very expensive and unavailable to most people. Hence, government funding of the arts is necessary.
To begin with, I think it is important for many talented but poor artists to receive financial support so they can continue pursuing their dream. Many artists are penurious before their art works are recognized. Art education and other basic materials are expensive, and may be unaffordable for these poor artists. During this period, these talented artists may struggle with basic needs for their daily life and pursuing their dreams. In this case, I think it is necessary to provide funding to support these artists so they can continue doing their art works.
In addition, most well-known masterpieces are very expensive and unavailable to most people. In these case, in order to provide an opportunity for most people to appreciate these masterpieces, which are unavailable to most people, government funding is indispensible. With government funding, many famous and expensive art works can be collected in big museums; people, who are interested in these art works, can visit museums and enjoy these exhibits. Further, these exhibits may inspire interests of potential artists. Otherwise, these well-known art works would only be available to people who can afford a great fortune.
However, as the other view mentions, government funding may threaten the integrity of the arts. Since financial support is involved, it is likely that governments may purposely or unpurposely showing their preferences of art expression. For instance, governments may not like art works such as caricatures they ridicule some new policies, politicians, or presenting things that are unfavorable. In addition, funding may constrain artists’ creations because supporters may not like some art expressions. In this case, government funding can curtail artists’ creativity, and threatens the integrity of art.
Overall, I align more closely with the view that government funding is necessary to ensure the flourish of art and make art available to most people because art is expensive. However, it is also possible that government funding can potentially threaten the integrity of art.