It is generally accepted that art enriches a society and plays a valuable role in its culture and history. Although some support government investment in galleries, artistic organizations and other art-related matters, others feel that this money should be spent on public services. In this essay, I will consider both views and explain why I agree that state funding of the arts should be redirected.
Those who support government funding usually argue that it is essential to maintain a healthy arts scene. In Australia, the government pours millions of dollars into this sector, with the National Gallery alone receiving over $8 million annually. Such institutions, it is claimed, are pillars of society, and money from the government makes them more accessible. Indeed, it is free to enter most public galleries and museums in Australia, thanks to the government’s support. Smaller arts groups and emerging artists also benefit from government funding, and without it, many worry that arts bodies would not survive, and that society would be poorer for it.
There are others, however, myself included, who feel that these fears are unfounded, and that taxpayers’ money would be more wisely spent on services that benefit the entire community. Already, many arts organizations not only survive but thrive without government handouts. The Museum of Old and New Art in Tasmania, for instance, is the state’s major tourist attraction, despite earning money solely from ticket sales and private investors. This kind of self-sufficiency supports the claim that state money should instead go to hospitals which could certainly use more staff, more wards and better technology or schools where the money could be put towards updating facilities, hiring more teachers or improving their resources. These are services used by every citizen and, in many cases, they are severely underfunded.
In conclusion, even though state support of the arts has been a long tradition, there are many other ways for artists and organizations to raise funds. It is more important for the government to spend on vital services such as education and healthcare.
- You are planning to visit a foreign country Write a letter to your friends and say Where and when do you plan to go What are the details of your plan Why do you want them to go with you 73
- There seems to be an increasing trend towards assessing students through exams rather than continual assessment What are the advantages and disadvantages of exams as a form of assessments 84
- Online education is becoming more and more popular Some people claim that e learning has so many benefit that it will replace face to face education Others say that traditional education is irreplaceable Discuss both view and give your opinion 78
- Some sports are extremely dangerous but many people still like them very much Why do people take part in dangerous sports Give some suggestions on how to deal with these dangers Give reason for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own k 78
- Many people believe that it is important to protect the environment but they make no effort to protect it themselves Why do you think it is the case What actions do you think that individuals can do to protect the environment 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arts'' or 'art's'?
Suggestion: arts'; art's
...t it is essential to maintain a healthy arts scene. In Australia, the government pou...
^^^^
Line 3, column 226, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he National Gallery alone receiving over million annually. Such institutions, it ...
^^
Line 3, column 569, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun worry seems to be countable; consider using: 'many worries'.
Suggestion: many worries
...rom government funding, and without it, many worry that arts bodies would not survive, and...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, so, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, such as, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 10.4138276553 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 7.30460921844 192% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1813.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 338.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36390532544 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78018524418 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594674556213 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 550.8 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6355167403 49.4020404114 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.866666667 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5333333333 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 7.06120827912 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.314665516188 0.244688304435 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101038715855 0.084324248473 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0597235957877 0.0667982634062 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192040094144 0.151304729494 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0104276367091 0.056905535591 18% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.