“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.
Artists have been called as poor since they typically lack financial assistance keeping them focusing on their own works. This was because artworks did not bring them fortunes directly; though artists succeeded in selling their works from time to time, in general people’s willingness to pay was not enough to support them to carry their own lives on, at least their living time. Modern arts often, on the other hand, critically depend on government fundings. In the United States, there is an governmental authority solely working on subsidizing artists, despite the worries on political imbuing over artworks. It seems, however, that with (only) proper schemes that protecting the freedom of expression fundings from the government is a critical aid to have arts thrive.
Some preventative measures, which deter politicians who would try inculcate their dogma into artworks, are definitely needed. Artists and laymen have learned this principle from painful history: governments’ interruption on artists that distorted the spirits of artworks. We can observe this phenomenon even now in some countries such as North Korea or China. Their governments are severely restricting the freedom of artists while granting fundings to those who are docile enough to produce artworks that praising the authorities. The sculptures of the leaders who had ruled, and are ruling North Korea, which are prevalent over the country is a shame on both the nation and artists there. Meanwhile, the United States and European countries such as the Great Britain, Germany, or France have learned from their history that the fundings flowing into art industry and the politics should be strictly separated. So, though various up to the environments they face, they have adopted and developed the double-blinded subsidying policies, which have achieved both the independence of artists and the flourish of national art industry.
People who are worried about the corruptions of arts may be unconsciously assuming that the artists who gets money from the government feel obligated to compensate it by producing works that benefits the funding source, the government. However, this has not been the case historically. Rather, they have been more obsessed in claiming their own expressions, even if they include insults or criticism on the government, and that is exactly what public who agreed with the assistantship intended for. Recall what Picasso did aiming Franco’s dictatorship and how authors in the era of Napoleon described him.
Also, in modern society, artists would get fundings anyway from private sectors, for example, which may cause more severe corruption. Since Andy Warhol’s artworks featuring close relationships between arts and industry, the artists who did not get grants from the government started to work for companies, who provides enough funds to have them produce artworks that propagate the good images of the company. This phenomenon is a still more crucial issue to the purity of arts, since what have been made is distorting the cognition of people on the company. Moreover, there is no difference between the corruption due to governmental funding and private funding in the sense that the independence of artworks do not exist anymore. At least, the government possesses tools to prevent such corruption, as described above, so that public can handle with the interference up to some extent.
Yes, there is risk for governmental funding to harm the purity of artworks, which imply further ramifications on the
freedom of expression. However, with appropriate policies the problem can be somewhat mediated, while without fundings artists would be tempted to condescend to work for conglomerates, which is more undesirable result for the public and the nation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 498, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...undings. In the United States, there is an governmental authority solely working o...
^^
Line 9, column 118, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...which imply further ramifications on the freedom of expression. However, with app...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, while, at least, for example, in general, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 11.3162921348 221% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3212.0 2235.4752809 144% => OK
No of words: 591.0 442.535393258 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43485617597 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93056706295 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87763985795 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 308.0 215.323595506 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521150592217 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 970.2 704.065955056 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.1411875262 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.652173913 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6956521739 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.26086956522 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => 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: 0.195416723077 0.243740707755 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.060900390487 0.0831039109588 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0551286379149 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106641118352 0.150359130593 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0362545969002 0.0667264976115 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.58 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 176.0 100.480337079 175% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.