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.
The ideal case would be if every art and artist does not need external funding and can maintain itself. Unfortunately, nowadays we are far from this ideal case. Undoubtedly, everyone will admit that supporting arts and making it available to all people is important thing to do. On the other side if someone funds some field, it is bringing risk for that field not to be as free as before and lose its impartiality. Thus often it is challenging task for artists or art representatives to choose between funding and preservation of their integrity. From my point of view, they should choose the golden mean. That is, accept a funding if the supporter is sincere and does not require changes on their ideals. However, if sponsor has requirements which will cause lose of their ideas and integrity, they should refuse it.
Government is the main organization, which should be concerned about thriving of arts in their country. Arts are one of the ways to introduce nation in a world, and having flourished arts is advantageous for a country. For example if someone sees paintings of famous Armenian painter Martiros Saryan, he/she will find enormous information not only about the country's picturesque nature, but also about its people, their lifestyle, traditions and history. Moreover, arts also can have huge educational function for its own nation too, especially for youth. So government should make sure that it is available for all people. For example in my country every year takes place a cultural event called "The night of museum", fund by the government. This day almost all museums in whole country are free for entrance.
However many people believe that for arts accepting funding from a government can have bad consequences such as losing independence. They claim, if government suggests funding for arts, it will also require something in return. Surely no one is insured that this will not happen and certainly if it does happen, than I believe artists should refuse any support. However I believe that the funding of government is the most "safe" for arts. As I explained above, government already has motivation for funding arts in the country. On the other side "government" is a managing body, elected by nation, and mostly it presents the interests of that nation. It is not an individual, which can have sharp preferences and will require artists to do something to please their taste.
To sum up, I believe that it is vital for arts to have prolific conditions to thrive and be accessible for people. However these conditions can be created only with sufficient support, getting which often brings a threat of losing independence. In such a situation artists should try to find a support which will not oblige them to lose their integrity. In my opinion mostly this kind of support can provide a government.
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.
The ideal case would be if every art and artist does not need external funding and can maintain itself. Unfortunately, nowadays we are far from this ideal case. Undoubtedly, everyone will admit that supporting arts and making it available to all people is important thing to do. On the other side if someone funds some field, it is bringing risk for that field not to be as free as before and lose its impartiality. Thus often it is challenging task for artists or art representatives to choose between funding and preservation of their integrity. From my point of view, they should choose the golden mean. That is, accept a funding if the supporter is sincere and does not require changes on their ideals. However, if sponsor has requirements which will cause lose of their ideas and integrity, they should refuse it.
Government is the main organization, which should be concerned about thriving of arts in their country. Arts are one of the ways to introduce nation in a world, and having flourished arts is advantageous for a country. For example if someone sees paintings of famous Armenian painter Martiros Saryan, he/she will find enormous information not only about the country's picturesque nature, but also about its people, their lifestyle, traditions and history. Moreover, arts also can have huge educational function for its own nation too, especially for youth. So government should make sure that it is available for all people. For example in my country every year takes place a cultural event called "The night of museum", fund by the government. This day almost all museums in whole country are free for entrance.
However many people believe that for arts accepting funding from a government can have bad consequences such as losing independence. They claim, if government suggests funding for arts, it will also require something in return. Surely no one is insured that this will not happen and certainly if it does happen, than I believe artists should refuse any support. However I believe that the funding of government is the most "safe" for arts. As I explained above, government already has motivation for funding arts in the country. On the other side "government" is a managing body, elected by nation, and mostly it presents the interests of that nation. It is not an individual, which can have sharp preferences and will require artists to do something to please their taste.
To sum up, I believe that it is vital for arts to have prolific conditions to thrive and be accessible for people. However these conditions can be created only with sufficient support, getting which often brings a threat of losing independence. In such a situation artists should try to find a support which will not oblige them to lose their integrity. In my opinion mostly this kind of support can provide a government.