When it comes to policy for arts and artists, the views are always ambivalent. Some hold the opinion that government funding of arts is positive, contributing the healthy development of arts, whereas others regard government funding as a threat to the arts, possibly in fear of the undermined freedom to express for artists. As far as I am concerned, there is no clear conflict between funding from authorities and non-govermental agents, and both are indispensible in the thriving of arts.
Foremost, government funding for arts plays a crucial important role in bringing arts to the public. First, let us take public gallaries as an example. They are excellent opportunities for the public to access fine arts, which is of both cultural and educational signifance. If there is no funding from the government for such expensive exhibitions, the cost for the public would be considerable. In addition, many private collectors are not willing to show their collections to the public, so public museums and gallaries are more desired.
What is more, many artists also rely on government funding and subsidise for survival in big cities like Beijing and New York. Big cities are always a hub for artists and cultural events, but the high living standard in these places also makes it diffucult for relatively unknown artists to settle down. While private art patrons serve as a financial source, they usually only offer funding to those artists of whom the styles are favoured in person. This is where government funding is expected to come in. For instance, in Chinese cities like Beijing and Shanghai, there are Art Village build by the government to accommodate artists, and these have been hugely successful. Importantly, government generally does not restrict the themes of works created by artists receiving its funding.
While government funding are significant, private funders are also necessary for arts. Private funders are less restricted when considering which artists or which genre to support, since they do not need to consider the sentiments of the tax-payers, for example. This is beneficial to the diversity of arts, which is a treasured characteristic for many cultures. In addition, private sources are likely to offer more funding for individual artists, since they do not have stringent budgets. It is also worth noting that private funders can hire professional artists to figure out artists that best deserve the funding, making the money imparted more effective in bolstering fine arts.
Due to aforementioned ground, I generally agree with the point that both government and non-government fundings are important for the thrive of arts, and these two sources are not mutually exclusive. Particularly, government funding should not be reagarded as a threat to the values of arts.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 131, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...n-government fundings are important for the thrive of arts, and these two sources are not ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, whereas, while, for example, for instance, in addition, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2366.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 449.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26948775056 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89936842608 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505567928731 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 736.2 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Interrogative: 2.0 0.740449438202 270% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4828323638 60.3974514979 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.666666667 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.380952381 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47619047619 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267771270825 0.243740707755 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0973883055257 0.0831039109588 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0808300359604 0.0758088955206 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175487928646 0.150359130593 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0519002017768 0.0667264976115 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.