Government funding should never be used to support art that the majority of the population finds distasteful or objectionable

Essay topics:

“Government funding should never be used to support art that the majority of the population finds

distasteful or objectionable”

Art covers a wide range of human activities which includes areas like creating visual, auditory, performing arts expressing imaginative or conceptual ideas that is meant to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. So should government use taxpayer’s money to fund art even when majority of population hate the it? The answer is a big resounding No. If art is supposed to be appreciated and majority of the population does not appreciate this art in whatever form, then there is little justification for the government to fund such a project such a project. The little justification for government to fund art that is hated by majority of the people is when the ultimate purpose of that art is for the greater good of the population.

In a society that is rife with want. Where there is lack of basic social amenities like water, light, good roads, infrastructural development, insecurity, lack of basic health care etc. art funds should be the least of worries by the government. Just imagine a community that has lack of water and light and instead of the government addressing these issues it goes ahead to commission a beautiful artwork in that area, that piece of art will definitely by hated by the people whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not because it is not a necessity to them.

An art work may be seen as offensive by the people and against their religious and cultural beliefs a government has not business using taxpayer’s money to fund such projects. Imagine a government erecting a statue of Buddha in a predominantly Islam community or erecting the statue of Jesus in a predominantly Hindi Society. In this case it doesn’t make sense to spend government funds on art.

But in some cases the piece of art may be hated by the people but may be of benefit to them in the long run. The government may commission a piece of art that reminds the people of a history that they will rather forget like the era of slave trade or unfortunate period of maybe war or disaster or erecting and architecturally artistic building in a place with a rustic feel to it. In both these examples the people may not love the art but it may become a source of tourist attraction to the area in the future.

In conclusion, there is a little justification for a government to fund an art work that is hated by majority of the people in the sense that the art may have long term benefits to the people that they may not foresee immediately, but ultimately government should not fund art that is detested by majority of the people because these are the taxpayers and the government is supposed to be concerned about the people. Taxpayers money shouldn’t be spent on art when it is not a necessity as there are other more important pressing needs neither should their money be spent on art projects that will cause religious rancour within their community.

Votes
Average: 7.8 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2021-09-13 Qasme 66 view
2021-09-13 Qasme 66 view
2021-09-13 Qasme 66 view
2021-09-13 Qasme 83 view
2019-11-06 sarahaduwa 78 view
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 323, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...t even when majority of population hate the it? The answer is a big resounding No. If ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 489, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...itely by hated by the people whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not because it is not a necessity to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 301, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('predominantly') instead an adjective, or a noun ('Hindi') instead of another adjective.
...nity or erecting the statue of Jesus in a predominantly Hindi Society. In this case it doesn't m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 165, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'termed'.
Suggestion: termed
...in the sense that the art may have long term benefits to the people that they may no...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, then, in conclusion, in some cases

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2393.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 502.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76693227092 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7334296765 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91946865872 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 215.323595506 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.426294820717 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 771.3 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 23.0359550562 135% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 97.6621848197 60.3974514979 162% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.5625 118.986275619 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.375 23.4991977007 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.25 5.21951772744 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => 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: 0.353679412476 0.243740707755 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141139304973 0.0831039109588 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11762052817 0.0758088955206 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215271283899 0.150359130593 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102081425486 0.0667264976115 153% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.98 12.1639044944 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.2143820225 128% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.