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.

Government’s funding of arts is actually a comprehensive issue, including which arts should be funded, how much should government devote. We can’t just give a simple answer yes or no. In my view, the minority of art should be sponsored, while popular art could make living by business or other social organization.

Most of us enjoy the beauty of art, like music, painting, movies, and so on. These amazing art works can release people, inspiring public and give us a sense of beauty. Such as Mona Lisa, which is the most beautiful painting ever, attract us by her charming smile. While art can be impressive and meaningful, but there are some problems on how the artists make living, especially those occupy the minority area of art. For instance, Chinese version B-BOX which majors in mimicking nature sound, has thousands years history. But now, it is facing a dilemma due to the shrink population of audience, as well as lesser people who are willing to learn it. Only through government’s funding, this tradition art can be preserved, and luckily, the art
funding association just publishes a policy to support these minorities.

While in some popular arts, government’s funding seems not to help them, but to destroy them. First, government has limited funding to devote, so not every artist can get a piece of the cake. To earn the support, some popular artist chooses to flatter government by their work. Such as some writers in china, writing eulogy of the communist party every day to make money. And some directors, cast revolutionary movies all the time to flatter the party. A more severe case is that BoXiLai, who is governor of ChongQing, forces government departments, commerce institutions, universities and schools singing ‘red songs’, and thus to learn the Maoist idea. Under such totalitarianism, everybody sing ‘red songs’, how would arts develop. From Bo’s extreme case, we can see government understand the meaning of popular art, and may further take advantage of it to advocate their politic will. So, it is critical to avoid this case, that government impedes the integrity of arts through funding, and to achieve their own goals.

In conclusion, government funding of arts should be properly utilized, instead of serving their own purpose. As illustrated above, minority of the arts is most needed to be sponsored, and thus to preserve the tradition, while the popular arts should not be funded, due to either their own ability to make money, or government may take advantage of it.