There are multifarious facets to arts and artifacts. And, financial factor is one of the many determinants which decide the fate of the arts. Thus, it is generally thought government funding is ineluctable if we wish arts to flourish and be accessible to others. However there are some, who believe that financial resource from government is rather threatening to the integrity of the arts. I support the former view because although funding leading to commercialization does threaten the inherent purpose of arts, government resources are still not extraneous.
Firstly, there are several artists who are experts in various different art forms. Even though they are passionate about their work, they do not receive as much recognition as they should have. This is exactly where government funding can play a major role. Funds can help the artists with the resources to export his work or exhibit his work at various nationally and internationally renowned exhibitions, thereby recognizing their art on a global and national basis. Arts is not only significant for our aesthetic pleasure but also for the enrichment of our society and culture.
Secondly, the materials required for arts could be expensive at times. While few materials are delicate and exquisite enough, some are extremely rare. To illustrate, I would cite an example of the sculptures. They require expensive rocks to work. In previous ages, materials were copious and people never realized their original worth. In the past 100 years of civilization, urbanization, people have become aware of the worth of such valuable materials and hence the prices went sky-high. This is clearly a deterrent for the skilled artisans. Government resources however can subsidize the prices for artists to encourage their skills and passion, which ultimately would lead the country gain an honorable appellation globally.
Nevertheless, government funding could be misused as well. As the debauchery increases in our society, most of the honest initiatives of the government are seen to be carelessly used or rather used for own benefits rather than benefiting the society. For instance, corrupt people who claim to be artists, could use the money disbursed by the government to satisfy his or her own personal benefits rather than following his or her passion and contributing to the society. Also, excess funds can lead to commercialization of arts, which would ruin the essence of real arts and promote the monetary success among the artists instead of encouraging them for a better aesthetic work.
In conclusion, even though there are few negative aspects of the government resources for arts, I feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Hence, government or the ruling party must encourage its own artists by providing every help they can. That would keep the skilled people motivated towards a progressive future .
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 264, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...o flourish and be accessible to others. However there are some, who believe that financ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 36, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
.... Firstly, there are several artists who are experts in various different art forms....
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 323, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...e motivated towards a progressive future .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, thus, well, while, for instance, i feel, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2435.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 456.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3399122807 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62105577807 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94096136783 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548245614035 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 762.3 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.8630877731 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.4 118.986275619 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.24 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.76 5.21951772744 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.312418942352 0.243740707755 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0841877918977 0.0831039109588 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0707064735208 0.0758088955206 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178132124823 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0980626481053 0.0667264976115 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.