Reply To: 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.

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. GRE Writing 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. Reply To: 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.

1585596474
University: Northeastern University
Nationality: China
October 17, 2020 at 8:37 am

It is no doubt that arts can set our mind free and encourage us. Government funding is always important to arts, but some think that the funding can cause discrepancies to arts and make some arts less important. However, in my viewpoint, government donations can fund artists to create more arts without restrictions and make arts more accessible to the public. Thus, my opinion more closely aligns with the former.

First, artists can devote their whole time and energy to create arts with government funding. There is less controversy that few artists can sustain themselves without government funding. Not every artist can succeed to create a beautiful painting which can make them famous and rich. It means that artists need to find other jobs to get salaries to pay the living cost. As a result, artists may not have enough time to create an exquisite art which can inspire public spirit, or they just create arts which are only aimed to make a profit. Eventually, there may be no fabulous arts that can open public horizons to a new world, and the academic field of art suffers a lot. Hence, government needs to fund the artists, and they could have chances to create more exquisite arts without worrying financial problems.

Second, all ordinary people can have free or cheap access to art museums with government donations. Most people might not have interest in arts, because they cannot comprehend the meaning behind arts. That is why art museums cannot attract many visitors. If the government did not give affluent financial support, the entry fees to those facilities might be higher. As a result, people may have less opportunities to look at exquisite arts, and it can deteriorate their ability to comprehend the meaning behind the arts. On the contrary, with the government funding, the entry fees to these facilities can be cheap or free. In the end, more people are likely to go to art museums and have chances to understand the meaning.

Some may argue that government financial support is not always an even distribution to all arts, and unfair donations can lead to discrepancies. I agree with the argument. However, it is not the case that all arts are equally important. In fact, government always gives more funding to the traditional arts which symbolizes a country’s history. As traditional arts receive more funding, more people can be proud of their own country’s history. Thus, it strengthens my opinion.

In short, my opinion closely aligns with the former. That is because government financial assistance can help artists to create more arts to inspire public mind without worrying financial problems, and more people can have easy access to the art museums. Eventually, the academic field of art and the public can benefit from this as a whole.