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

From prehistoric times to not in modern society, humanity has always created art, even during the war or famine. However, since art is not directly related to our life like food or housing, most people ignore the existence of art when they are mired in poverty or busy accomplish their missions. Therefore, government has supported the arts when it is threatened. Although some people argues that government funding of the arts may threaten the integrity of the arts, I firmly believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure the prosperity of the arts due to the reason that government funding will not ruin the integrity of the arts and only government can keep its support continuously.

Granted, in an extreme condition, government funding can threaten the integrity of the arts. To illustrate, we can see an example of North Korea. In North Korea, government patronize for artists, but they only provide government funding to artists whose arts fit in Juche Realism which is implemented by Kim Jung-il. In other words, no matter how art works are impressive and creative, they do not offer the funding if they do not herald the socialism. Therefore, in North Korea, the integrity of art is ruined and we cannot regard North Korea’s artworks as sheer art works.

Although government fundings can have side effects in some extreme cases, in general, artists can maintain their own ideals and styles on their works. For example, there are many great pieces that were funded by patrons such as catholic churches or nobles which are equivalent to governments in modern society. Mona Lisa, the masterpiece of Leonardo da Vinch was sponsored by a patron; However, it does not have any flaw due to the fact that it was a painting supported by a patron. Also, many Bach’s works were composed for mass and that he made those songs for catholic church does not make any difference on the quality of the songs. Though these works were made for their sponsors, each work itself has its own greatness and is not inferior to a work which is made by an artist’s own purpose. Also, as I mentioned before, since the arts is not close to our daily life, people usually ignore the value of the arts when they have hard time with their own life. At this moment, government funding is the only way to sustain artists who have enough ability but mired in poverty and prevent the extinction of the arts.

In brief, government funding is pivotal for the artists, especially when they have no support from publics. Government funding will not ruin the integrity of the arts generally and even if the funding reminds artists of ideology or purpose of the government, the work itself can be a great achievement like artworks made in medieval.