First timer here , would appreciate any kind of feedback.

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.


Pros: will allow it to flourish, less people will be reluctant to pursue because of funding issue, could allow for grand projects.

Cons: Propagating an agenda, inhibiting protest art,

Overall Position: Pro



Art is a means of expression of creativity, emotions, ideas and values . Art is of an essential importance as it serves to define the personality and quintessence of a country, by feeding and enriching culture of that country. In addition, art also serves to connect cultures who otherwise have a language barrier, since the language of art is universal. However, we currently in a world where the greatness of nation is marked by the rate of its technological innovation and development, and one where globalization is rapidly increasing. As a result, government funding for the arts is has become more important than ever in order….

Firstly, since the field of sciences and technology hogs plenty of funding, most people are encouraged to pursue careers lying under the umbrella of that field, even if they lack an interest in them. For instance, in Egypt, the crème de la crème careers are the ones that are either in medicine, engineering or law, while an interest in an art career is considered a waste of time of time and resources, and will only pave a path to poverty. Therefore, government funding to the arts will encourage more people to pursue it without the concern that they won’t able to pay their bills, and it will make it accessible to all people.

Secondly, globalization is creating a world that is becoming exceedingly homogenous, especially in capital cities. For instance, you can find an H&M store, a Mcdonalds, a Starbucks and Hollywood movies in cinemas everywhere you go Therefore, funding in art , and art education to everyone, is needed in order to preserve the culture and develop it further.


Thirdly, funding could actually expand the freedom and provide the option for artists to create grand creative projects that could otherwise not have been realized without it. However, I do concede that government interference in art could, in some instances, damage its integrity, especially in the case of protest art. Protest art refers to creative works that are produced by activists and social movements, whose purpose is to criticize and reveal the corruption of a government. For example, Ai Weiwei, a contemporary Chinese artist who is nicknamed The Dissidant, uses art to criticize the Chinese government’s neglect of human rights.

In conclusion, the government should fund art in order for it to flourish, become accessible to everyone, and to preserve cultures. However, such funding could give it the power to prevent people from expressing views that either criticize or do not align with the views of the government.