Despite the industrialization of modern society, the arts and related activities are vital part of our daily life which provide important opportunities for entertainment, education and reflection. While I agree that government funding is necessary for arts to flourish and for ordinary people to enjoy arts, the concern that government funding may compromise the integrity of arts is a valid one. In my opinion, therefore, it is important for the government to sponsor arts indirectly through an independent committee as an antidote to potential threat of government funding to the integrity of arts.
As a threshold matter, government funding and sponsorship are essential to the development of arts. Unlike popular hollywood movies, which are often sponsored by big corporations through embedded advertising, many artworks could not attract a large number of audience who are willing to pay a large amount of money. If the government does not support the artists and their creative works, the public would not have the opportunities to enjoy high quality artworks. In addition, arts and creative activities related to arts require infrastructure such as art museum and art schools that can offer space and training programs to exhibit the works and cultivate artistic talents. Without the support from large corporations, the government has to allocate funding to build art museums and run art schools so that the public can access the museum and send more children to art schools at an affordable rate. With more members of the public interested and trained in arts, artistic works and activities can then flourish.
On the other hand, it is understandable to worry that the government's funding may threaten the integrity of arts and artists. It is well known these days that arts are socially constructed artifacts that do not exist in political vacuum. Any artworks can and must carry political meanings and messages, which may challenge the authority of the ruling elite. Meanwhile, the government always has the incentives to sponsor arts that may help advance its own political agenda. For example, in Mao's China, almost all the songs and movies were produced with a theme of revolutionary propaganda under the sponsorship of the Communist Party. For Chinese artists at the time, there was virtually no freedom or integrity for arts, which has become a tool for legitimizing the Communist regime. The last thing we want in China or any other countries is a government sponsorship program for arts that would silence the creative and political voices of artists.
Given the tension between the need of government support on the one hand and the threat of government funding to the integrity of arts on the other, I would argue that the best solution is to create an independent commission that distributes government funding in a politically neutral way. The commission should be run by a group of artists elected by their peers and receive government money regularly. But the government would have no power or influence over how the money will be spent to sponsor different arts projects. Sponsorships will be awarded to projects based on their merits, not their political or ideological stances. In fact, Hong Kong Arts Development Council, an organization created by the government to sponsor art projects in Hong Kong, has been operated under this model. As a result, artists in Hong Kong have enjoyed financial support from the government without any threat from the government on their integrity.
In conclusion, given the profound impact that arts may have on the society, it is, on the one hand, necessary for the government to support artistic works financially; on the other hand, it is tempting for the government to influence the artists and their activities politically through such sponsorship. To address this paradox, I have proposed a solution that has worked well in certain regions such as Hong Kong.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 604, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nment funding to the integrity of arts. As a threshold matter, government fundin...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 243, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...tising, many artworks could not attract a large number of audience who are willing to pay a large...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1022, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...works and activities can then flourish. On the other hand, it is understandable ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 957, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eative and political voices of artists. Given the tension between the need of go...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 945, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...from the government on their integrity. In conclusion, given the profound impact...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 418, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l in certain regions such as Hong Kong.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, then, therefore, well, while, as to, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, as a result, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 34.0 12.9106741573 263% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3308.0 2235.4752809 148% => OK
No of words: 635.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2094488189 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01988110783 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91585169108 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445669291339 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1012.5 704.065955056 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9702146731 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.833333333 118.986275619 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4583333333 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.625 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 21.0 10.2758426966 204% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.396813548326 0.243740707755 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128209384673 0.0831039109588 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100655592493 0.0758088955206 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243963544337 0.150359130593 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0782101870986 0.0667264976115 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 145.0 100.480337079 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.