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 prompt seemingly raises a debate between opposing parties, with the former claiming that government subsidy to the arts is necessary to guarantee that the arts can flourish and be accessible to all people, and the latter arguing that government funding of the arts makes the integrity of the arts unwarranted. However, even a cursory analysis of the two statements would reveal that there is no inherent tension between the two statements at all, because the former is a claim about the necessity of government patronage to the arts, while the latter one is assuming a certain kind of negative impact of government funding on the arts which can be obviated. I believe that both statements have raised valid points, and the latter one needs some qualification.
For starters, it is indisputable that government endowment to the arts is necessary and can make arts available to all people. The reasons are listed as follows. First, government funding is conducive to the establishment of museums, which can help people to get in touch with a myriad of ancient art works closely and know how invaluable the arts are as well as the origin of culture without being charged for entrance. For example, the National Museum, which is patronized by the government, has become a youth basement where provides exhibition of ancient artifacts for free. All citizens can acquire chances to learn more about the arts in this museum. Second, government may offer financial support to the education of art. For instance, the majority of middle schools provide art courses for all students, such as painting and music classes. All material used in such courses, such as pens and books, are free for all students with the subsidy of government.
Having clearly stated that the government funding of the arts is surely of necessity, now let’s evaluate whether the government patronage to the arts will threaten the integrity of the arts. It cannot be denied that the arts’ integrity may not be warranted when they are patronized by the government under certain scenarios. The nature of the arts should be the expression of some real emotions of the artist, while this kind of emotional expression sometimes may be distorted when the artists are confined to the requirements of the government, which makes some art works seem politics-oriented. For example, National Endowment for the Arts, an independent agency of the U.S. government that supports the creation, dissemination and performance of the arts, once forced the patronized art work regarding the theme of homosexuality to change as required. Also, the majority of films and musics in North Korea are served for political goals like arousing hero worship. Both of the aforementioned examples can reveal the fact that sometimes the government funding of the arts interferes the purity of the art works.
However, we should avoid carrying the statement to the extreme. While the government subsidy to the arts may sometimes threaten the integrity of the art works, this phenomenon will not happen all the time if the government funding is aimed at the whole industry of the arts rather than single art work or artist. Establishing the art districts can be seen as an exemplar of this. For instance, the 798 art district in Beijing is subsided by the government, but it is free for all kinds of art forms without being meddled by the government. Besides, the government can also help the art industry by reducing tax for the art works. In 2018, the government of China adopted laws to reduce 15 percent of the tax rate of the industry of arts and culture, which will not interfere with the purity of art works.
To sum up, government funding of the arts is certainly beneficial to the dissemination and development of the arts and it will not threaten the purity of the arts if handled properly.
- According to a recent report, cheating among college and university students is on the rise. However, Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting an honor code, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic en 55
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Sports teach people lessons about life. 86
- Some people like to buy and eat their meals at restaurants frequently while some others like to eat at home. Which do you prefer? Why? 90
- Some companies in the United States have developed "wellness" programs that give rewards or incentives to employees for achieving certain health-related goals, such as stopping smoking or losing weight. The rewards and incentives include cash pr 76
- The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, well, while, for example, for instance, kind of, such as, as well as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 86.0 58.6224719101 147% => OK
Nominalization: 38.0 12.9106741573 294% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3223.0 2235.4752809 144% => OK
No of words: 643.0 442.535393258 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01244167963 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.03561760524 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81011333606 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435458786936 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 991.8 704.065955056 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 82.8446923801 60.3974514979 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.291666667 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7916666667 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.21951772744 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.539976856537 0.243740707755 222% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179687897838 0.0831039109588 216% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123835825213 0.0758088955206 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.357668146625 0.150359130593 238% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0377048612873 0.0667264976115 57% => OK
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.8420337079 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 100.480337079 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 28.5 11.8971910112 240% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.