The government should provide funding to the arts to ensure that they can flourish.
Few people choose the become artists in order to make money. In fact, turning a profit as any cultural institute, whether a gallery or a theater has proved increasingly difficult in recent years. The rise of streaming services and the internet means that few people are willing to pay for the luxury of attending an opera. This serves to further discourage artists from pursuing their vocation and as institutes must mark up their prices to remain solvent, makes the arts less affordable for many. As such it is imperative that the government take an active role in financially supporting artistic ventures, not only to insure them from insolvency, but also to allow them to flourish.
Many would agree that culture is the beating heart of a culture. When we look back at our cultural icons we often see great musicians, talented painted or virtuoso composers. Yet despite this near universal consensus on their importance the life of these artists has often not been simple. As an artist, one’s wage is often contingent on finding powerful benefactors. When these are not available, artists are often doomed to a life of misery and pecuniary. Consider the brilliant Vincent Van Gogh. Today his works are sold for millions of dollars, however, few appreciated his works during his lifetime and he died forlorn and poor. Is this the fate we wish upon our own artists?
Furthermore, leaving artistic institutions to the whims of the free market often turns them into luxury goods for many. A theater or opera in order to survive often have to sell tickets for prices that are simply unaffordable for many. This serves to increase socio-economic inequalities as it makes the arts accessible only to the highest strata of society. It is likely that someone who earns minimum or even the average wage in his state has never even stepped foot in an opera house! If we truly believe that arts are so important why should we restrict their enjoyment only to our richest citizens?
Nevertheless, a reasonable person could point out the threat posed by government funding to the arts – a risk of political manipulation. Israel a country where government funding for the arts in plentiful has often been accused on funding based on political affiliations. When a predominantly Arab theater staged a piece about the life of a Palestinian terrorist in Israeli jail, the culture minister decided to cut its funding, thus threatening its very existence.
While this argument surely has merit, it is important to remember that art funding too can have clear criteria that can prevent political manipulation. After all, the United States is able to afford its citizens numerous welfare measures, such as medicare and unemployment benefits, without the risk of political patronage. Thus the risk of posed by putting the arts under the government’s yoke appears to be greatly exaggerated.
Just as we provide certain medical benefits to our citizens, so should the government provide subsidies for the arts. If culture is indeed the heart of the nation, we want to make sure it can beat healthily. After all, a nation with no culture is no nation at all.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-21 | Inbar Amit | 83 | view |
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in a way no speaker ever could. 16
- People’s attitudes are determined more by the immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole. 66
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 66
- Should teachers' salary be based on students' academic performance? 83
- The government should provide funding to the arts to ensure that they can flourish. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 491, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... even stepped foot in an opera house! If we truly believe that arts are so import...
^^
Line 9, column 325, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ithout the risk of political patronage. Thus the risk of posed by putting the arts u...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, thus, while, after all, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2639.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 526.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01711026616 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77710585572 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 291.0 215.323595506 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553231939163 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 847.8 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6791545138 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.5 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2307692308 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.88461538462 5.21951772744 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174981691113 0.243740707755 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0426232847368 0.0831039109588 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0661529122866 0.0758088955206 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0959943916912 0.150359130593 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0624988078038 0.0667264976115 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 100.480337079 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.