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 discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Whether the arts should or should not be governmentally funded is indeed a difficult conundrum, because there are important reasons both for and against this idea. Overall, however, I believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and a country benefits greatly when its government supports the arts financially.
Critics of governmental funding of the arts often claim that it is impossible to support all types of arts in an evenhanded and objective way. There is a large variety of different types of arts and while some jump to mind immediately, others are more subtle. Painting or photography, for example, might be something one immediately thinks of. Dancing or performances are also forms of arts, however, and it would be problematic if they would be supported less simply because they are not as stereotypical examples of “the arts” as the former.
That governmental funding of the arts would be subjective and biased against certain art forms is one potential problem. In addition, however, it can also be very difficult to decide which specific artists, museums, or art projects should be funded and which should not. “The arts” are inherently subjective, there are no or few objective criteria based on which one could decide whether a certain artist or piece of art is better or worse than another. In sum, since governments can usually only dedicate a limited amount of their household to funding the arts, it is a very demanding task to come up with criteria that allow a decision about where this money should go.
That being said, however, I think that it is difficult, but by no means impossible to come up with a good funding concept. I am convinced that if certain maxims are taken into account, a society can truly benefit from its government investing into the arts. For example, it seems important to me to allocate the available money in such a way that a broad part of the society can benefit from it. Instead of funding a certain artist, for instance, the government could create a yearly stipend which can be won in a national competition. If a jury composed of people from different backgrounds decided who gets the price each year, all artists would have equal opportunities in receiving support.
In addition, I think that a government should try to attract a broad part of the society to the arts. While deciding whether a certain piece of art is “good” or “bad” is certainly a subjective endeavor, creating ample opportunities for people from different backgrounds to engage with and learn about the arts is more objectively important and beneficial. In order to achieve this, a government could, for example, fund museums so that people do not have to pay for entrance tickets and those who do not have a lot of money can go to the museum without having to think about whether they can afford it or not.
In summary, I think that there are certainly good reasons to worry that governmental funding of the arts could threaten its integrity because it is not easy to come up with a fair and unbiased strategy on how to allocate the funding. I do by no means believe, however, that a government should take this as an excuse not to support the arts at all. Instead, it is a government’s obligation to carefully deliberate about strategies and concepts that allow them to support the arts without prioritizing some art forms and neglecting others. I am convinced that in that way, a government will foster not only the arts, but also the society as a whole.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 330, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...s; are inherently subjective, there are no or few objective criteria based on whic...
^^
Line 5, column 491, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[9]
Message: The adverb 'usually' is usually put before the verb 'can'.
Suggestion: usually can
...than another. In sum, since governments can usually only dedicate a limited amount of their...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, while, for example, for instance, i think, in addition, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 11.3162921348 212% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2958.0 2235.4752809 132% => OK
No of words: 600.0 442.535393258 136% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94923200384 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91123494223 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438333333333 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 931.5 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.3633902193 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.454545455 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2727272727 23.4991977007 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.27272727273 5.21951772744 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => 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: 0.372556036344 0.243740707755 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11848994273 0.0831039109588 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0553038074403 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216673398013 0.150359130593 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0504566008899 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.1392134831 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.