funding of arts
PROMPT: 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.
ESSAY :In 1500s, Florence was the epicenter of the renaissance movement in arts. Without the patronization, freedom and the funding, this would not have been possible. On the contrary, if arts becomes the government mouthpiece, then this eventually leads to its downfall. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the influence of govt. funding on arts is related to how much freedom it gets to innovate.
Firstly, We need to ask ourselves a question does arts really need funding? Innovation usually comes at a price and if suitable help is not provided for, then arts can't flourish. But we need to consider another important variable i.e. freedom. Consider for an instance North Korea, a country which is technically a necrocracy, and has strict rules on arts and culture. Even with the govt. funding, nothing remarkable has come out of North Korea because people are not given any choice to innovate and brainstorm. Each artpeice is concerned with Kim dynasty only. Usually when freedom is not provided, integrity of arts gets compromised because the rulers start using arts as their mouth piece. For example, in Islamic countries, people are not allowed to cartoon Prophet Mohammed or caricature any ruling official, this often leads to one-sided views which are not healthy for any population.
However when arts gets funded and is given freedom to innovate, the results are remarkable. While thinking of Renaissance age people such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Michalenagalo etc. A good example in this case, is culminated their imagination into the masterpieces that we have today. Who can't admire the baeuty of St. Peter's Basillica or the mysteroius Mona Lisa? Therefore innovation in arts goes hand in hand with freedom. A nearer example which I can quote is from Indian history. Akbar the Great was a connoisseur of arts. He had peope from various religion, caste and creed in his durbar. He indulged them into debates regarding arts, politics, religion etc. This led to fusion of ideas which can distinctly seen in the forts he built. These forts are the epitome of artist innovation. These things could not have been possible if Akbar had not given people the requisite freedom.
Moreover, as artist such as Vinci became successful, it inspired a legion of creative people to flock to these places and prove their mettle. This is the reason for Florence and Venice to become famous for renaissance arts. As the arts was available to all people, it lead to amalgamation of many ideas leading to distinct varieties of renaissance arts.
Thus the govt. funding of arts can't solely determine whether it will flourish or not. It really depends on the freedom being provided to artist for innovation.Hi jvishal :)
On the contrary, if arts becomesBECOME ...
Therefore,(PUT A COMMA) it is ...
... a question : does arts ...
... people are not allowed to CREATE A cartoon OF Prophet Mohammed ...
However ,(PUT A COMMA) when arts ...
Therefore,(PUT A COMMA) innovation in arts ...
He had peope (WHAT DO YOU MEAN "PEOPE", SPELLING "PEOPLE") from various ...
Moreover, as AN artist such as ...
As the arts wasWERE available ...
Good job :) enjoy your writing :)
