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

Arts and sciences are two very different streams, be it the nature, developing process, acquisition and their value with time. Science has flourished and always caught the attention of everyone from the top level governance to the lowest level of a layman. Art has not received that much attention from neither the government nor the people. People, in general, are ignorant that so many arts actually do flourish. In this context, as stated in the statement, the funding from government becomes a necessity to keep the dying indigenous art alive.

Umpteen styles of crafting, sewing, weaving and other primitive activities have lost their real importance because of myriad reasons. One of the many reasons is that these arts flourish in rustic areas which are deprived of very basic facilities. The work of the weavers, craftsmen etc generally reach the market through the middle men, owing to their financial incapability in promoting their product on their own and also ignorance. These middlemen earn in bulk but payback the progenitors of the arts in pennies. There is no administration involved and no one to whom the artsmen could go to. Take for instance, assam in India is the harbinger of innumerable indigenous form of arts but the condition of the artsmen is poor and they live in penury. Same is the condition of hand loom industry in Kolkata, India. The weavers, in Kolkata, weave a special variety of Silk called Tashar silk, used to make traditional Indian apparels like Sari, Kurta , Chunni etc. The middlemen and the shopkeepers earn thousands and sometimes lakhs from the sale of one piece of these apparels but the amount that flows back to the weaver is trifle. With this being the condition the very subsistence of the artsmen is in question. So, here the government funding will help the arts not only to reach people but help its progenitor to thrive.

On the contrary, the statement has very aptly argued that the funding might lead to the loss of integrity of the arts. An art reflects the natural talent, agility and sleight of hands of arts men. The funding from government will add a materialistic tint to a pure form of practice. The indulgence in art might increase because of government funding but the practitioner might not be the ones devoted to arts but to the fund. For example, In India, the government allots fund to small scale industries for its growth but that money seldom goes to the actual beneficiary and is lost in the hands of depravity of Industrialists and ministers.

Granted, the funds might get embezzled and might lure people who are not devout of arts but at the same time, this will help art flourish and help the patrons of art to survive. The embezzlement of funds can be checked by government through other means and this should not be the factor for not promoting arts through the fund it deserves.