Hi everyone, I am new member. Can you guys help me revise my essay below?
I really appreciate it! Thanks.
Questions: Do you agree or disagree: Should the government sponsor artists or artists sponsor themselves?-------
Over the past decades, the arts has played a essential role in the modern society: they inspire our creativity, nurture our mind and cultivate our temperament. Along with the remarkable development of arts comes an interesting discussion, should the government sponsor artist or artists sponsor themselves? I entirely agree that the government should financially subdisize the artist. And reasons and examples are given below to illustrate my standpoint.
The chief reason lies in the complexity of art creation and difficulty that artists face. As it is known to all, the process of artworks creation is painstaking and time-consuming. For instance, it usually take several years for a sculptor to finish a exquisite/delicate sculpture. Another good example in case is that the production of movie of Avatar took its director, James Cameron, 10 years to complete. However, as individual entrepreneurs, artists, especially young ones, have no fixed incomes. Without the government funding, artists cannot afford to pursue their art because they have to worry about their livings and do not have much time concentrating on the art creation. Thus the number of great artworks will be greatly reduced and the arts will not thrive. Therefore, the government should optimize the distribution of its resources and give financial support to artists.
Another factor that should be taken into account is the benefit of the arts to society. It is apparent that the flourish of art industry will simulates the business activities. Take the 798 Art Zone in Beijing as an example, the local government of Beijing city provided fund to local artists and set up an art zone where gathered numerous independent artists to make exhibitions of their artworks. As a result, the park attracts lot of visitors, even many foreigners and it currently becomes the cultural landmark of Beijing. It is apparent that funding artists could not only raise the reputation of Beijing as the culture center of China, but also increase tourism revenue for the local government.
Admittedly, it may be true that it might be difficult for the government to choose which artist to support because of the diversity of their artworks. However, the government could set up special foundations to screen and select best candidates. Also, the government are supposed to implement some policies, such as tax deduction and low-interest loan, which are favorable to artists.
Based on the reasons analyzed above, we can safely draw the conclusion that the government should provide fund to the artists. This would in turn generate more benefits to the society.
I really appreciate it! Thanks.
Questions: Do you agree or disagree: Should the government sponsor artists or artists sponsor themselves?-------
Over the past decades, the arts has played a essential role in the modern society: they inspire our creativity, nurture our mind and cultivate our temperament. Along with the remarkable development of arts comes an interesting discussion, should the government sponsor artist or artists sponsor themselves? I entirely agree that the government should financially subdisize the artist. And reasons and examples are given below to illustrate my standpoint.
The chief reason lies in the complexity of art creation and difficulty that artists face. As it is known to all, the process of artworks creation is painstaking and time-consuming. For instance, it usually take several years for a sculptor to finish a exquisite/delicate sculpture. Another good example in case is that the production of movie of Avatar took its director, James Cameron, 10 years to complete. However, as individual entrepreneurs, artists, especially young ones, have no fixed incomes. Without the government funding, artists cannot afford to pursue their art because they have to worry about their livings and do not have much time concentrating on the art creation. Thus the number of great artworks will be greatly reduced and the arts will not thrive. Therefore, the government should optimize the distribution of its resources and give financial support to artists.
Another factor that should be taken into account is the benefit of the arts to society. It is apparent that the flourish of art industry will simulates the business activities. Take the 798 Art Zone in Beijing as an example, the local government of Beijing city provided fund to local artists and set up an art zone where gathered numerous independent artists to make exhibitions of their artworks. As a result, the park attracts lot of visitors, even many foreigners and it currently becomes the cultural landmark of Beijing. It is apparent that funding artists could not only raise the reputation of Beijing as the culture center of China, but also increase tourism revenue for the local government.
Admittedly, it may be true that it might be difficult for the government to choose which artist to support because of the diversity of their artworks. However, the government could set up special foundations to screen and select best candidates. Also, the government are supposed to implement some policies, such as tax deduction and low-interest loan, which are favorable to artists.
Based on the reasons analyzed above, we can safely draw the conclusion that the government should provide fund to the artists. This would in turn generate more benefits to the society.
