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

“What is an art”? Or How to define an art? Research has shown that it is inexorable to culminate the footsteps of art in other related and non-related fields such as arts can be related to movie making, specific style of cooking or even landing an unmanned spaceship onto a moon. The corollary is what can encourage art and what can affect the probity of art. The prompt presents a controversial view on art supporting by government funding, if it can lead to flourish and accessible to all people or it can affect the integrity of it. In my view government support severely affect the probity of art. The reasons that are supporting my view are presented in the following paragraphs.

First of all, arts as defined by research from the ancient time has inherent or gifted by God to very few people. Therefore, it cannot be nurtured by any sort of support. For instance, the famous painter of India, Mr. Hussain has been pursuing painting since his childhood when he was 6 years of age and then he phlegmatic about what art is. Had government funding come in the consideration, it would have been difficult for him to meet the standards set by government for a funding and he would have been forced to amend its talent as per government requirement. Further, the toy makers in Channapatna, a region in India, famous for handmade toys have carried on this art from one generation to another. In this case as well, had government intervened, they would have forced to develop toys as per sales, market, can future capital requirement which would have led them to completely forget their traditional art. Both the cases show that support by the government can hinder the growth and probity of art. It matters because it is the inherent skills which made them popular and could have been curtailed with government funding.

Secondly, government funding comes with censor regulations therefore affect the art of dancing and singing. For instance, the famous Boogie Woogie TV dance show would have been succumbed to censor regulations had it supported by government funding since many of the dance forms such as Jazz and B-Boying were considered to be infelicitous by traditional Indian customs. Further, the upcoming and lately, the popular singing sensational rappers like Mr. Badshah and Mr. Honey Singh would have not allowed their persuasion of rapping beating all box office records and produced worldwide tracks had government supported them since both of these rappers are used to have some words which are considered solecism as per government funding guidelines. Both the instances justify that government funding impetuously affect the natural probity of an art. It is appreciable since the art can be flourished in any direction but government funding restricts the erratic behaviour.

Thirdly, some arts are devolve from one generation to another therefore must not be funded by government since research has shown that it would curtail its wings. For instance, the worldwide famous logistics, Mumbai Dabbawala, art involved in receiving and delivering the lunch box on time with accuracy irrespective of any weather or situation would have led to its unwarranted transformation to a company had it support by the government since it requires that any commercial setup be it art, if funded by government, must be a company and follow corporate regulations. With this approach, this logistics art would have not been a case of management in all business schools around the world. Further, the art of making home furnishings by Godrej would have not been popular and cherished if government intervened since it would have led them to comply home safety requirement and environment guidelines etc. Both the examples prove that government funding led to circumscribing the probity of art by discouraging it natural progression. It is significant in order to have an art which can reach to sky without any limitations or restrictions.

Of course, some would argue that had government intervened these arts could have been accessible to the larger masses. However, as many researcher had proved that art cannot be nurtures therefore cannot be curtailed by any restrictions, therefore, it must be restricted to aesthetics only leaving the large masses. In conclusion, art is something which should not be accessible by any neophyte or dilettante, therefore it does not require any funding by the government, otherwise it would compromise its probity.