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.
Government funding of the arts is essential for the arts to thrive and be available to all people. However, it is important that the government should not patronage individual artists for fear of the government’s interference with the composing process of artists and the content of their works.
First, the government should provide funding to art museums and exhibition centers so that art museums and exhibition centers can be free for people to visit. Without government funding, the art museums and exhibition centers might charge visitors a high entrance fee, which might prevent poor people and young students from visiting these museums and exhibitions. However, all people should be granted the opportunity to appreciate the masterpieces of great artists like Da Vinci. Thus, the government should provide funds to the art museums and exhibition centers and guarantee that the arts will be available to all people.
However, the government should not provide funding to artists themselves because some artists may want to deliberately meet the taste of the government to secure government funding and the government might interfere with the composing process of artists or the content of their works, which will threaten the integrity of arts. For example, the former Soviet Union government provided funding to Russian artists and coerced them to produce works that deliberately praise the government. To avoid such problems, the government should provide funding only to museums and exhibition centers and should not patronize individual artists.
Admittedly, some artists need patronage to make ends meet or otherwise they might have to take a common job just to make a living. Young artists may not be famous enough to make ends meet just by selling their works, and thus the artists need the patronage so that they could focus their attention on their composition. Yet, it is the individual sponsor, not the government, that should be responsible for providing patronage to these young artists. For example, during the Renaissance period, the Medici family patronized many artists like Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael, when these artists were young and not famous. If it had not been for the funding from Medici Family, the arts during the Renaissance period would have not been able to thrive. Therefore, the individual artist who might be in need of patronage in order to make ends meet should ask individual sponsors not the government for help.
To sum up, the government should provide funding to art museums and exhibition centers so that art museums and exhibition centers can be free for people to visit, which is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. However, it is important that the government should not patronage individual artists to avoid the problem of the government’s interference with the composing process of the artists and the content of their works. And the individual artist who might be in need of patronage in order to make ends meet should ask individual sponsors not the government for help.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, for example, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 31.0 12.4196629213 250% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 12.9106741573 256% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2618.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 497.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2676056338 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79610749972 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 215.323595506 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.342052313883 0.4932671777 69% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 779.4 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.3803323008 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.444444444 118.986275619 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6111111111 23.4991977007 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.77777777778 5.21951772744 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334369637649 0.243740707755 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.147478799973 0.0831039109588 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.150305429722 0.0758088955206 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.251571016349 0.150359130593 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0990886966364 0.0667264976115 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.38706741573 90% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 100.480337079 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.