Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that arts can flourish and be available to all people.
Others believe that government funding of the arts threaten the integrity of the arts.
Many countries subsidise the arts to some degree. While the French are orientated towards their film industry, the USA gives very scant support to artists, but funds free access to national art galleries; and the British government, through the Arts Council, has supported arts projects, some of which have even invited controversy. After weighing the pros and cons as detailed below, it would be clear that the arts must be guileless and flourish free of vested interests. It shouldn't either be the prerogative of an elite or wealthy people.
Plethora of instances over history denote that with the government's financial support, the arts have steadily grown. The Renaissance in Europe and the great number of stellar artists growing out of this period are testament to this fact. Many of those that are celebrated today had indeed been founded by royals or patrons relatively close to the political muscle. These donators had comprehended that artistic temperament is not compatible with a routine or a typical 9-to-5 job, and the funding of artists so that they can fully express their talents is required.
Government funding of the arts is not either necessarily synonymous with a passive relationship in which the money citizens pay as taxes is prodigally expended. One could imagine a collaborative and symbiotic process where the nation and artists can engage in, so that arts can flourish and be available to the majority. Those who benefit from the public support might, as a way to give back to the society, give lecture in schools, prisons and underprivileged environment for the arts not to be only regarded as an elitist leisure. Book festivals, public galleries or free entry in museums once a week are other ways to democratize the arts.
It is also important to note that literature, paintings or sculptures are pillars of our moral education, of civilised societies, and it thus must be up to its rulers to fund it. As they provide unique moral insights without which nations would be soulless and blind, the arts must not be sacrificed on the altar of mercenary free market capitalism, which itself threatens his integrity. Capitalists might be philistines but that does not mean that the entire society would be made culturally illiterate by abolishing state funding of the arts. Only the state can do it in a responsible way, appointing committees of artistic experts to make responsible and impartial decisions.
On the other hand, considering arts funding by the state deprived of pernicious influence over artistic expression and development would be quixotic. Such a stance would result in politicians favouring one art form (often traditional painting or sculpture) rather than others, more conceptual. The ideal and essence of arts itself are incompatible with state, or arguably, any stakeholder in a position of control or authority. We have also learned from the past, especially with communist and extreme regimes, that funding of artistic projects all too easily slides into the realm of propaganda. Art should be free to criticize the government, otherwise it cannot burgeon.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 478, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...d flourish free of vested interests. It shouldnt either be the prerogative of an elite o...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 571, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a responsible way" with adverb for "responsible"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...g of the arts. Only the state can do it in a responsible way, appointing committees of artistic expe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, thus, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2615.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 504.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18849206349 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85100130819 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 289.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573412698413 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 824.4 704.065955056 117% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.449378507 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.523809524 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.33333333333 5.21951772744 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => 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: 0.354064433697 0.243740707755 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101316327471 0.0831039109588 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0698276837479 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199825382168 0.150359130593 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0711545242267 0.0667264976115 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.81 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 159.0 100.480337079 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.