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

Nowadays, arts are available in coffee shops, museum, and streets; however, many people have a problem to be an artist because of a fund problem, therefore, the government funding for art is controversial. Some visionaries argue that government needs to support money to flourish whereas others claim that funding will threaten the integrity of the arts. Admittedly, both ideas are important. As far as I see it, the government should pay enough money to support artists and residents to improve the quality of the arts. However, without considering the disadvantage of the government’s support, it would be erroneous to conclude that government funding is useful for all residents. Therefore, in the following analysis, I would provide evidence to support the position that the funding from the country will beneficial for art industries.

To begin with, one logical explanation for my fundamental agreements is artists can earn sufficient wages. A good example is when Japanese people try to be an artist, they have to pay more than $2000 tuition fee per year for art schools; however, they can earn only a $1300 per month which is under the minimum wage in Japan. As a result, many art students gave up their dream because of financial situations, and this caused declining art industries in Japan. In 2016, five famous museums in Tokyo region closed because no one goes museum because of the quality of arts. Thus, I believe that government funds can support a lot of artists who can generate great quality of arts, so we can improve arts and quality and number of museums.

Furthermore, if a museum’s value would improve, citizens will more interested in arts. The technology improvement declined the visitor of museums because people can see arts through the internet, so more people will go to a museum for arts which have high quality and attracts people. Moreover, today’s entrance fee for an art museum is quite expensive. We have to pay nearly $50 in admission, so more people tend to think that a museum is a luxury place. Hence, if there is the government’s monetary support to improve an artist’s quality and admission fee, many residents might visit and engage for arts, so the arts industries will flourish.

Even with all reasons, however, it would be still too perfunctory to conclude that the supporting from the government is beneficial since there is no denying that the disadvantages of funds in some conditions. Admittedly, if artists can use a lot of money from the nation, the value of arts will change. When many people can become an artist easily, it means that people, who are not great at arts, can become an artist easily, and use the amount of money for invaluable artists. Therefore, we have to consider the usage balance of money.

Consequently, I advocated that supporting money from the country will flourish the art industries of the country. The main reason is that art quality will improve, and the other reason is that people can have more opportunity to see the arts in museums, while I also agree that value of arts will change because the number of artists will increase significantly no matter how many levels of arts they can produce. I want to stress that the usage of money for each artist is quite important. Considering these reasons, it is clear that the government’s fund for art industries is useful.