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

Art depends on a wide range of factors. But of paramount importance among them is creative freedom. This is what gives birth to the need for self expression that artists exude with their distinctive style. In this regard, government funding or the arts can be a double edged sword if it is not implemented with caution and restraint for it may threaten the creative freedom of an artist. In light of this I think that government funding of the arts should generally be discouraged with a few exceptions.

First and foremost, government funding policies always have to obey statutory restraints. These restraints usually include strict specifications for the conditions under which funding is granted to any particular cause. To apply the same to the arts would mean that the government would have to classify what is art and what isn’t. However, art is a continuously evolving form of creative expression and it may change to take on completely new forms. Hence, trying to classify creative expression as art or not is a futile exercise at best because the classification will rarely ever be all encompassing. In doing so the government will place restrictions on creative freedom and more importantly will encourage artists to only practice art forms which are recognised and funded by the government. As a result, the natural evolution of art forms will be altered and some art forms might even die over time.

Secondly, in classifying art the government also opens up art forms to the social and cultural prejudices of the policy makers who will dictate what is art and what is not. Take the example of two different art forms: architecture and painting. We cannot expect policy makers to understand each of these with the same depth that their practitioners do. Moreover, each policy maker might have his own inclinations and disinclinations towards certain art forms. Some might consider painting to be art and architecture a mere profession and vice versa. However history has given us exemplary models for each form in the Taj Mahal and the Mona Lisa. Both are prominent examples are in their respective fields and to declare one as art while ignoring the other will be a grave injustice to the arts in general.

Lastly, I must concede that while government funding threatens art in fundamental ways, it may also be the last ray of hope for dying art forms. People practice art out of love and devotion to their creative interests and often this does not equate a steady source of income as all art forms are not equally marketable. The example of the Indian Handicraft industry is most pertinent here. Indian Handicraft originates from small rural villages in India where artisans create wooden sculptures, decorative glass work, intricate patchwork on cloth and many other things. These people live in conditions of extreme poverty and depend on the government’s support to market their work. Without financial aid for travel and sustenance the Handicraft industry would have been long gone and India would have lost an art form unique to it’s culture and people.

Therefore in conclusion, I would like to reiterate that creative freedom is quintessential to art. Restricting or influencing it in anyway will surely affect art negatively. In addition, a government may need to fund dying art forms in order to ensure their continuance, but it must do so with caution and restraint so as to not change the art form or hinder it’s natural evolution.