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.
Art is an integral part of our lives and culture, and it can be present in various forms, for eg. movies, music, paintings, sculptors etc. It often acts as a medium for people to forget the worries of their lives and wander in the surrealistic atmosphere that art can provide. Needless to say, protection and conservation of art is vital for sustenance of a society. In my opinion, government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that it can flourish and be available to all, and I provide three reasons to support my cause.
First, the arts provide a means of living for a large number of people. Consider, for instance, a movie theater, which employees a variety of workers, ranging from the people at ticket counters to projection managers, from sweepers who clean the cinema to chefs who cook and serve food, among many others. The salaries of the actors, directors, camera-persons, singers, etc. also depend on the accessibility of cinema to common people. We can examine any other form of arts such as music or painting and we will realize that each one of those is responsible for providing a living to numerous people, which will not be possible if these forms of art are to perish. There are many forms of art, for instance films, which require cinemas and paintings, which require museums for their propagation. Maintenance of such big buildings might not be feasible for self-funded organizations, which makes government funding even more important.
Not only does the arts provide living for the citizens of a country, it also contributes massively to its GDP and overall income. The tourism levels in the city of Bruge in Belgium increased by more than ten times after the release of the movie In Bruges. The Lord of the Rings movies had a similar impact on the tourism and GDP of New Zealand, the country in which most parts of these movies were shot. Therefore, by investing in art, the government has double advantage in that it is also replenishing the funds of the country alongside sustaining the art form.
Now, supporters of the opposite notion might suggest that if an art form is popular or good enough, it should be able to fund itself via revenues from tickets. This claim has an unstated assumption that a "good" art form is also popular. As we know, art is highly subjective and there can be various art forms that only cater to a niche audience. These art forms will not be able to fund themselves irrespective of their quality. Furthermore, making entry paid will severely affect the reach of the art form as it might no longer be accessible to certain people of the society. Therefore, relying only of ticket revenues is a dangerous notion that will impede the impact of art on society.
The above examples illustrate the need for government funding for arts as it will not only help sustain the art, it will also provide a means of living for a large number of people as well as it will bolster the economy of a country. Therefore, I see no reasons why government should not allot adequate funds for arts and culture.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 47, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... the arts provide a means of living for a large number of people. Consider, for instance, a movie...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 204, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...s claim has an unstated assumption that a 'good' art form is also popul...
^
Line 17, column 157, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...will also provide a means of living for a large number of people as well as it will bolster the e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, so, therefore, well, for instance, such as, as well as, in my opinion
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 : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2550.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 535.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76635514019 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69006576848 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.47476635514 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 792.9 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3452198089 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.25 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2916666667 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.33333333333 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.369630108767 0.243740707755 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116144199085 0.0831039109588 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845544758212 0.0758088955206 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22855992154 0.150359130593 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0566402768454 0.0667264976115 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.