Government funding should never be used to support art that the majority of the population finds distasteful or objectionable Write an essay in which you take a position on the statement above In developing and supporting your position you should consider

Artists of all kinds have the absolute freedom of creating art solely and completely according to their own wish. The support from the government in the form of funds and grants is a huge help in giving a form to the artists imagination. But does that necessarily mean that funding should be given to anything and everything that any artist creates on the face of the earth? Some may be of the opinion that government funding is a major nutrition for the artist irrespective of the acceptance of his work. However, on careful deliberation one can refute to the above opinion by saying that even though an artist’s freedom of creation is important, majority of the taxpayers should not be made to pay for some art they find distasteful or objectionable.

There are several examples and evidences that can reinstate the position. Renowned artist M.F.Hussain created the much publicized and criticized objectionable paintings of Hindu deities. While the artwork in his creation may be admirable for some, it hurt the religious sentiments of a lot of people. Keeping in mind the artist’s liberty of expression, such paintings cannot be ethically banned. However, when some amount of government funding is diverted to these paintings, it is the from the common taxpayer's pocket that this money is deducted. It is not fair to expect him to pay for something that he has an aversion to.

Another example that further describes the evidence for this position is that of the book by James Lenn on a prominent Maratha ruler, Shivaji. His controversial writings created a lot of stir and unrest in a majority of the population for whom the ruler was extremely respectful. The artist can always find private investors for his work or raise money on his own, albeit a little difficult. Government funding for such ventures will not only be unfair to that majority population, but also incur the wrath of the sensitive portion of the population.

Similarly, an artist that is influenced by some anti-social principles like terrorism may vent his aggression and feeling through his art. Funding to such creations, which obviously are distasteful and inappropriate for most people, from the nation's treasury would not only tax the government fund store, but also serve to encourage the spread of such ideas.

There might be an exception to the position which, in the realms of our discussion, cannot be overlooked. If the majority of people find the artist's work unsuitable to be given any help, the creation may be falsely labeled as objectionable. This would deny the artist an opportunity to put forth his possibly beautiful piece of art, because the government gives in to the demands of the majority. It is situations like these when writers like Salman Rushdie are rusticated in spite of writing powerful pieces like the Satanic Verses or Midnight's Children.

Examining the above evidences it may be safe to conclude that while government funding may be important in helping an artist to flourish, funds originally obtained from a common man's taxes should not be invested in something he does not wish to see. An artist’s creations are best appreciated when they are in harmony with the tastes of the masses.