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.
Art is one of the human aspects that discriminates human from other creature in the cosmos. The art is a varied collection of all the things that evokes humans’ spirit. The art bestows solace to our soul and paves the way of living in the harsh world. Some believe that art is a human spiritual aspect and no one could bid it. They are whom severely condemn the materialism, as they think that it hurts the integrity of the art. Some other challenge them in the way that, how the artist, who creates art, could earn a living regardless of the money, the prerequisite of all the things in our materialistic world. In other words, they go so far as to obligate the government to subsidize art specifically to ensure that the art is blossomed and become available to all people. As far as I am concerned, there are some disadvantages on each side of the coin. After elaborating the points regarding of each side disadvantages, I will address that, the funding the art is more rational in comparison to the other belief.
From one direction, if the government finances the art, it would lead to an egregious phenomenon. The unfair art. In such a case the politicians may abuse the art, to progress their own will in society. For instance, it may lead to the national media will be glutted with some of the political programs. Probably, such program's aim to praise the competency of the government and legitimize their merit. Even it may go so far as to do not let the other artists express their arts. All in all, it hurts the legitimacy of art.
But on the other side, from the financial outlook, if the government does not subsidize the art, the public interest of art dramatically will be dwindled, because one of the most motivating factors to inspire the human to work, willy-nilly, is financial aspect. Accordingly, soon, the number of artists will be reduced dramatically, the art is being fade and at last, is being forgotten. This phenomenon would lead to a pernicious effect on the culture of a civilization.
Another flaw regarding in not subsidizing art is that many people who their jobs are related to the art may lose their job. In other words, this condition may put at risk not only an artist but also the all other people who their jobs are indirectly related to the art somehow. For instance, one who sells ticket of a theatre may hurt from such a condition as well. As a result, it may dramatically escalate the rate of unemployment in a country.
To sum up, although it seems government’s finance may go away the art from its desire, it is not worth the art diminishing or unemployment increasing. So I am of the opinion that the governments should finance the art not only because of preventing of the culture slaughtering but also because of limiting of unemployment increasing.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-06 | ralfraihat | 50 | view |
- Scandals Are Useful Because They Focus Our Attention On Problems In Ways That No Speaker Or Reformer Ever Could. 70
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 66
- According to a recent report by our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies act 23
- Some parent offer their school-age children money for each high grade (mark) they get in school Do you think this is a good idea? 70
- Scandals Are Useful Because They Focus Our Attention On Problems In Ways That No Speaker Or Reformer Ever Could 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 272, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...the national media will be glutted with some of the political programs. Probably, such prog...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, if, look, may, regarding, so, well, as to, for instance, as a result, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2319.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 495.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.68484848485 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71684168287 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88441696685 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448484848485 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 738.0 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.8493303791 60.3974514979 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.76 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76 5.21951772744 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.418019698089 0.243740707755 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119787000287 0.0831039109588 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0765113912178 0.0758088955206 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225630035876 0.150359130593 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0802953232953 0.0667264976115 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.1392134831 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.86 12.1639044944 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.