- 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 notion that government funding of the arts is helpful and even critical to the integrity of the arts has received ample support. And, in many senses, it is undeniable that nationwide financial aids on arts can encourage development of the arts. However, so many undesirable by-products related to this type of public intervention warn us that it may seriously threaten the autonomous and natural developments of arts.
Of course, few would disagree that public assistances will contribute to the integrity of arts. In terms of preservation and restoration of several forms of traditional arts which have lost their initial appeals to public’s taste, governmental efforts to revive them cannot be ignored. By endowing generous amount of public money on its traditional arts such as Gabuki (an opera-like traditional Japanese musical) and Szumo, Japan has successfully expanded the enriched range of its artistic choices. This says that government efforts sometimes ensure true development of the arts.
In addition, when it comes to increase in public accessibility to the new types of arts, governmental assistances seem crucial to the general integrity of the arts. By providing publicly founded facilities, governments can encourage many young artists’ experimental explorations and ultimately link them to the public.
However, all those success stories do not automatically guarantee the absolute virtue of governmental support. With regard to self-sustainable independence of a kind of arts, chronic reliance of government support may diminish its financial autonomy. It is frequently deplored that many fields of arts, partly because of their long-standing reliance on public money, have failed to find out their own ways to make money in the merciless jungle of the market.
Moreover, government funding seems also harmful to the integrity of the arts in the sense that it may distort the natural harmony of diverse fields of the arts. With limited public resource, it is inevitable that there are some art forms or some artists that are unfortunately excluded in the charity of governments. Then, what will be the consequence of it? Just as many economists blame the distortion of the market along with governmental intervention, so the world of arts may lose its natural selection of proper arts in the free environment.
Finally, I think government funding is also detrimental to the vigor of the arts in another sense. With regard to the diversity or uniqueness of the arts, the size of government power may sacrifice some singular visions of modern artists. By making artists continuously calculate the probability to be loved by the powerful (or the rich patron, governments in this case), extensive public aid system may tempt the artists to compromise their initiatives. In many socialist countries or authoritarian societies where artists earn their livings almost from the governmental subsidies, thus, it is not surprising that many streams of arts converge on one uniform river which lacks any diversity or vitality in political message or philosophical vision.
To sum, …………
Can we say that the integrity of the arts tends to be worsened by government funding? In some sense, it is true that governmental intervention, whether it is based on good intentions or not, may threaten the health of the arts. Only by exaggerating the possible harms of government assistance, however, this view may miss the potential benefits of it for the arts, especially in terms of b1 and b2.
Of course, few would disagree that government intervention may yield several counterproductive consequences in arts. When it comes to the major principles of modern policy making in most countries, the prioritization of economic value, it is the destruction of the world of arts that we can easily imagine from the governmental funding and its sequential controls. Since the introduction of extensive policies for development of arts in the late 1990’s, many Korean artists have shown more complaints and criticisms than appreciations toward them because, instead of helping balanced and harmonious development of diverse genres of arts, they seem to increase the existing gap between the “profitable” arts and the “unproductive” (by the modern economic standards) areas of arts. In fact, while some areas of arts, film or drama industries, can exploit both private and public investments, most traditional arts and experimental artists have been known to be relegated to relative alienation and abandonment from those policies. This says that government funding may play more negative than positive roles in flourishing the arts.
Nevertheless, governmental aids can make young artists continue their careers rather than quit by providing them some valuable opportunities ……..
Moreover, public funding is also conducive in a certain market situation. In the modern competitive market, it is easy for tradition
Congratulations @moomoo2018! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!