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.

The author presents an argument in front of us whereby there are two factions. The first group is are in favor of government funding of the arts in order to help the arts flourish and make them more accessible for the people.The second group of people is against this idea as they feel that it will damage the integrity of the arts.Both of the groups have might have their reasons in which they are justified but I feel that in any field if there are enough resources to keep the people motivated the field will grow and flourish.

It depends upon how the money is being invested into the field of arts. Government can help to build art galleries and organize events where the people showcase their work in order for the audience to appreciate the piece of of art,which would have gone unnoticed without proper recognition.This will help the people gain recognition in the field of art and outside of it.It will also motivate other acolytes to develop a passion in this field which has not been appreciated relative to the other fields of works.

In my view, passion might be important in life but if you cannot make a living out of it inspite of being good at that particular skill, then you might have to give up on your dream and try to look your alternatives. This is the same plight that the arts industry might have to face if the government does not sanction appropriate funding for the field to grow. When people are appreciated for their work,they feel motivated to strive for excellence and thus create more beautiful and awe-inspiring works. Just imagine how would great artists like Picasso and Michelangelo would feel if there was no one to appreciate their art.

Though funding the arts department would be beneficial for the people in that field, the people opposing the funding would also have some compelling points.It might happen that with more money coming into the field of art,it not be just about the aesthetic quality of the piece of work but it will be primarily about the economic value of it. People might start judging it not as a piece of creativity and the amount of effort which goes into it,but as an object which has some price value attached to it. Thus the integrity of arts will be in grave danger because it will not be about how beautiful a piece of work is but by the economic value attached to it.The key is to strike a balance between the both because while there is a certain value attached to the art piece,people have to keep in mind that it is more than that.A work of art represents what an artists thinks,what inspired him, what are the emotions attached to it and a lot of hard work which goes into transforming the mental image in the artist’s head into something which describes what he thinks in an effective but subtle way.

In my opinion the field of arts has been overlooked when it comes to investing in that field and promoting the experts in that field. Therefore in order to put this field right where it belongs government funding is necessary to promote it as a field which sparks creativity in the youth and at the same time provides a sustainable option for the people to get into this field.