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.
Response :
Arts depict the characteristics of a civilization and society, so, the preservation of all the art forms is of utmost importance. Government can help in preserving the integrity of arts by funding and subsidizing art related works.
Arts are mostly non-profitable endeavors. Proper financial support to arts will ensure that, artist are able to develop their artistic skills and they get a proper platform for exhibiting their skills without any hardships.
In developing and under-developed countries, the scarcity of financial support hinders the proliferation of arts. The artists are forced to choose alternative career options in which they can afford a standard of living. Such a scenario has a detrimental effect on the arts of a civilization. If the government provides an adequate financial support and encouragement, then the younger generations shall be able to find career options in arts.
In most of the countries, museums and art galleries are funded by the government because they are subjects of national importance, likewise a particular skill set which develops an unique art forms such as plays, paintings, or music is of national importance and must be preserved.
On the other hand, the government funding of the arts may threaten the integrity of arts, if the funding is prejudiced to some particular fields or subjects of arts. In Soviet Union era, government encouraged only those areas of arts which aligned to their political motives. This biased support led to ignorance of other areas of arts which did not developed in that era. In some countries, a particular forms of drawing or music are banned. So, if the government funding is biased towards different subjects of arts, then the overall development of the arts gets compromised, as the creativity of the artist is limited to produce arts with specific themes.
It's the duty of the government to be unbiased towards all forms of arts and contribute to the overall development of arts.
Summarizing the topic, government funding of arts is beneficial for the proliferation of arts, as it helps in preserving as well as developing arts. But, it may also affect the development, if government funding is concentrated to particular subjects , rather than overall all development of 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.
Response :
Arts depict the characteristics of a civilization and society, so, the preservation of all the art forms is of utmost importance. Government can help in preserving the integrity of arts by funding and subsidizing art related works.
Arts are mostly non-profitable endeavors. Proper financial support to arts will ensure that, artist are able to develop their artistic skills and they get a proper platform for exhibiting their skills without any hardships.
In developing and under-developed countries, the scarcity of financial support hinders the proliferation of arts. The artists are forced to choose alternative career options in which they can afford a standard of living. Such a scenario has a detrimental effect on the arts of a civilization. If the government provides an adequate financial support and encouragement, then the younger generations shall be able to find career options in arts.
In most of the countries, museums and art galleries are funded by the government because they are subjects of national importance, likewise a particular skill set which develops an unique art forms such as plays, paintings, or music is of national importance and must be preserved.
On the other hand, the government funding of the arts may threaten the integrity of arts, if the funding is prejudiced to some particular fields or subjects of arts. In Soviet Union era, government encouraged only those areas of arts which aligned to their political motives. This biased support led to ignorance of other areas of arts which did not developed in that era. In some countries, a particular forms of drawing or music are banned. So, if the government funding is biased towards different subjects of arts, then the overall development of the arts gets compromised, as the creativity of the artist is limited to produce arts with specific themes.
It's the duty of the government to be unbiased towards all forms of arts and contribute to the overall development of arts.
Summarizing the topic, government funding of arts is beneficial for the proliferation of arts, as it helps in preserving as well as developing arts. But, it may also affect the development, if government funding is concentrated to particular subjects , rather than overall all development of arts.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment