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

If the various sciences-astronomy, biochemistry, physics- can be funded by the government then why can't arts be funded? Every action has some auspicious and some inauspicious consequences. Similarly the government funding of arts has both effects, but the merits far surpasses the demerits. Hence i agree with those people who are convinced that the government funding is imperative to ensure that the arts can flourish.

The first reasoning behind my claim is that the "Starving artists" is not just a adage rather its an real-life phenomena. Thousands of artists nowadays are poverty-stricken, not due to the lack of skill but because of insufficient awareness of the arts. There are only limited people in the world who not only appreciates arts but can also afford it. Most of the general public are unaware of the artist or artists work. As a result, these aspiring artists find it difficult to sell their works. Government funding can help ameliorate this situation. If the destitute but talented artists are to receive grants from the government, then they can strive to achieve greatness without facing the trepidation of death daily.

The second reason is the general publics lack of understanding of the arts. The general populace doesn't even have an modicum of knowledge regarding the arts. Organizing free art exhibition or establishing more people friendly museums are steps that can help garner the attention of the masses which subsequently leads to burgeoning of arts . However such steps require enormous amount of capital. The governments contribution can hence solve such problems which hinder the development of the arts.

Finally consider the people with latent talent. In modern world there are only few universities or institutions that provide arts education. Moreover this institutions are not cheap; they require heavy payment. Due to such conditions - either lack of institutions or finances - people with the untapped potential can't realize their own ability. Maybe many Vincent Van Gogh or Monet remain undiscovered because of the very same reason. In such scenario, governments endowment can be be crucial. The funds can initiate free courses or launch scholarship programs. Such initiatives are requisite for the flourishing of arts.

On the contrary the government funding can also threaten the integrity of the arts. The integrity of arts depends on it's being free from interference. Because of the support ,the artists sometimes becomes complaisant to government. Some artists will then create art only to cater to the governments needs. They may do so by suppressing their inner self ; this can have far reaching implications. Perhaps if he had followed his true passion then he could have engendered a masterpiece. Such cases show that the government can seriously jeopardize the artists integrity.

The evaluation all the varied opinions , either in favor of government funding or against, and also analyzing the reasoning behind those opinions led to the conclusion that the though there are few unpropitious repercussions , the benefits are far too many. Hence i agree with those people who believe that government funding can help in ensuring the thriving of arts.