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.
The question of being publicly funded or privately funded has always been part of the ongoing intellectual and economic debate of modern history. Economist John M. Keynes and President Roosevelt where the two main figures that introduce the sphere of influence of the government in the private world of modern capitalism in the US, and the Soviet Union in 1917, this one being more extreme. Being so wide in scope, the question inevitably springs and touches economic fields, social fields and artistic fields. The latter, in particular, is at the center of a recent debate on whether the general market for art should be financed by the government or by private entities.
It is fundamental to define the scope of the concept of art. Anything that is the product of some creative and original process can be defined as artistic expression of someone’s mind. Therefore it is reasonable to ask ourselves whether a sublime product of the human’s brain should be considered universal or should be privately owned. In my opinion, the concept of universality of art should hold and there’s where the government intervenes. Think of some of the most successful museums in the world such as the Louvre or the British Museum or the Museum of Modern Arts. These are all examples of museums owned by the respective national departments of culture. The British Museum is also characteristic as it does not require you to pay for an entry ticket thanks to an efficient form of public financing that keeps its artistic wonders open to the wide public, no matter what.
Furthermore, government intervention is of primary importance when inefficiencies exist. The overall process of artistic production may encounter few disincentives in an environment where no regulation exists and where every step is let to the private entities. Thus, the government can intervene with adequate subsidies and forms of incentives and guarantees of copyright protection.
At the same time, opponents may argue that government funding can be detrimental for art production. There have been numerous examples in history where the government financing required a quid pro quo condition where the artistic production should glorify the nation and respect national regulations. This aspect is especially encountered in developing countries where basic rights of expression are violated and the same was happening under the Soviet Union where architecture, visual and literal arts where intended to be an expression of the Communist party.
On the other hand, subsidies of a government can actually derail from their primary objective of adjusting inefficiencies of the private market and become inefficient themselves. The government may end up diverging funds towards a specific form of art that mostly complies with the national identity that it wants to establish. However, it should be considered that private funding itself can also be diverging and not open to innovation. Impressionism in the 19th century had to wait for 100 years to be finally appreciated in the different groups of intellectuals and private art investors.
In conclusion, I believe in art being open to everyone as it is representative of how the cultural traditions of a specific nation have changed overtime. Architecture, literature, visual arts, sculptures, they are all part of a specific historic context and part of human history. The government should play a fundamental role in financing art protection and art development giving freedom of expression to artistic currents and equal treatment to new forms of expression that may go against the established conventions.
- People s behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making 79
- A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual s levels of stimulation The study showed that in stimulating situations such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey firstborn infant monkeys prod 39
- 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 66
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain 75
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 186, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... artistic expression of someone’s mind. Therefore it is reasonable to ask ourselves wheth...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, in conclusion, in particular, such as, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3061.0 2235.4752809 137% => OK
No of words: 577.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30502599653 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03851231555 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 287.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49740034662 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 965.7 704.065955056 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9826736345 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.44 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.08 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.92 5.21951772744 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => 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: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292083746687 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0864959046047 0.0831039109588 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0710189644693 0.0758088955206 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15984933731 0.150359130593 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0568144011566 0.0667264976115 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.