7Some 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

Famous pictures, the historic sculptures and the manuscripts of extraordinary writers, as well as the modern creations, those masterpieces may win our awe for their integrity, beauty and creativity when we step into the museums or art gallery. Preservation and patronization of those will cost a large fortune and most of the money may be spent by the government, however, people will start to question whether this act will affect and distort the purity and originality of art while they are enjoying them. As far as I am concerned, the funding from government is essential to art industry for its officially appropriate protection while it also requires the public and artists to be skeptical about the potential interference from the government.

Art, represents the unique culture, history, mental trajectories of a country. By admiring those masterpieces, people may recognize life courses of their ancestors and relate themselves to the very culture unconsciously. In some countries, historic sites or ancient art forms are introduces as an educational tools to their younger generation. Thus a good and well-rounded protection must be critical for the cultural inheritance. However, due to the ceratin historical background, some cultures were invaded by other races which meant myriads of valuable arts were exploited by the invaders. Government's funding and official image may help complete their part of lost history by reclaiming them from diplomatic ways which is hardly accessible for any individual.

Moreover, as a subtle replacement, people will use art forms to express their suppressed feelings which fail to find any appropriate verbs to gush them out. Sometimes the art may merely reveal the artists' inert retrospects, yet sometimes may unleash the artists discontents to the current society or circumstances. However, under the latter situation, the opportunity of a patronage from government may be less for the work's purpose may contradict to the government's basic policy. Fear for social turmoil or mental and behavioral negative impacts, moderate regulation from government will be harmless such as the prohibition to the publish of pornography which may lead juvenile delinquency or even worse criminal cases. On the other hand, excessive interference will be unnecessary and will damage the initial integrity of art. For example, some countries have rather rigid censorship. If the works need the financial help from the government, they have to obey the rules and no unappropriate tendency will be detected from the works. Or in some countries, arts are manipulated as a politically propagating tool serving to certain party or leaderships. Both of the interferences are extremely harmful to the art and the perspectives that the audience may receive.

Therefore, when it comes to art, the function of government may be a double-edged sword. It endows art a kind of authority to protect the racial relics; however, the political impacts may severely risk the art's intactness.