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

Historically the arts and culture have played the unique role in the society - it enriches our understanding of our lives, expands our thinking and tells our stories in the creative manner. Since our earliest days, the arts depicted our lives, reflecting the historical period - classical greek art changed rapidly as Greece went through wars and imperial transformations. And, of course, to save the historical pieces there should had been funding that mainly was coming from the private patrons. Has it changed since then? The statement above presents two conflicting presentations of the same true fact: it is unquestionable that government funding can either ensure that the arts can elucidate or endanger the arts’ integrity. The numerous examples from the past convey the appearance that both opinions to the certain extent are likely to be true. However, while there is certainly a correlation, there is no causation between government funding and arts’ integrity. In my humble opinion, for arts, not to be affected by the outrageous influence due to the subsidies, it would be preferred to search for unbiased investors, like philanthropies and voluntary means that encourage art to be free from any altering values.

The first view, that the government funding is “bread and butter” of the arts to ensure that they can flourish, can be clearly examined through the examples from the russian arts. Indeed, recently “The Balkan Line” film was announced, subsidized by the Russian Ministry of Culture. Indeed, the public money amplified the viral marketing campaign - hence the film was provided to the wider audience. Whereas in a number of developing countries, the assumption holds true, on the other side of the coin there is the great deal of countries, replete with reverse examples. Consider the operations of the Royal Opera House and La Skala in Italy at various times, it seems that as the extent of public funds rises, the costs rise as well. Evidence suggests that subsidies do, indeed, increase costs rather than supply of the arts.

At a more fundamental level, however, there is the assumption that the government funds put in peril the arts’ integrity. It is not so clear, as it is highly related to the nature of the art piece and artist’s viewpoint. What, first of all, can we mean by the idea of the “arts’ integrity”? If we think of it in the terms, universally shared by all human beings, then the integrity genuinely means the ability to omit an acceptable level of disrupting and opposing values that would otherwise alter the artist’s original vision. It is worth considering that the public funds, subsidizing the arts, should have the benign effect on the society, hence it should not appear too blatant. For example, artworks, depicting the raffish and lascivious scenes, are in the state of flux, as it is hardly being argued whether they bring any benefits at all. At its pinnacle, I would say that the appearance gets the relation backwards and it relies on the narrow-minded view of that there is no other sources of funding, but the public funds.

Just as we find difficult to definitely declare the linear causation between the arts’ integrity and public funds, so we should elucidate the other sources of funding opportunities. Those subsidies can come from private funds, corporate sponsorship, the sale of tickets and the National Lottery. When the government is not the paymaster, the key relationships are between the providers of the arts, those attending performances and those giving voluntary donations. Accountability is strong. The apex of the issue rests on the fast - the provision of culture is always intrinsically linked to the source of the funding. For example, if the private funding is involved, the art will be highly depended on the community viewpoint. And according to the same logic, government funding will encourage art to exist for the sake of bureaucratic values. No the other way around.

In the end, the statements present two partly true facts that have different implication. While often this is how things may look on the surface, in reality any kind of funding can shape the artist’s viewpoint. In any case, the artist has freedom to choose and can always make an attempt to find like-minded people. No doubt, funds flow can help art to flourish, one should always bear in mind that it is highly depended on the distributor policy.