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.
▼Sample Essay▼
The National Endowment for the Arts supports programs all around the United States that promote exposure to all of the creative arts. The NEA also funds grants for various artists and projects through an application and award process. There is little doubt that, without this organization, children in otherwise culturally-deprived areas of the country would have no introduction to the creative arts. The struggling artist may be a popular stereotype in film and fiction, but the fact of the matter is that new artists in nearly every field do struggle, at least for a time. The NEA allows these artists to apply for grants to help them get a start. Some may say, “I don’t care about painters or sculptors", but the creative arts encompass so much more. It is not strictly high-brow. The artists include writers of fiction, drama, poetry, and journalism. They include composers of country music, Broadway scores, and classical pieces. Many people don’t realize the number of ways that they are exposed to art in their everyday lives.
Because it is funded by the government, the NEA budget varies depending on the whims of Congress. Senators and congressmen also feel entitled to attempt to place restrictions on the type of artwork or artist supported by NEA grants. There arises the paternalistic attitude that says," If l’m paying for it, l’ll decide how it gets used." The congress has attempted to censor some forms of artistic expression by claiming that it is pornographic or demeaning to one group or another, even that it is unpatriotic. It is difficult, if not impossible, for an artist to express his vision if that vision is clouded by requirements placed upon it by otherwise well~meaning public servants.
What are the alternatives to public funding of the arts? It used to be that gifted artists would have wealthy patrons who were individuals or even the Vatican itself in the case of the sculptor! architect, Bernini. Of course, the Catholic Church placed restrictions on the kinds of work completed. Other patrons generally made demands of the artists they supported as well. The artists, however, did stave off starvation and homelessness. Patrons of the arts still exist and invest in Broadway productions, pay for visiting musicians at local concert halls, and donate paintings to museums. This still limits accessibility to the arts for those who live in rural or otherwise remote areas.
Does one require live experiences to say that he/she has been exposed to the arts? The World Wide Web allows anyone with an Internet connection to view works of the masters and hear recorded performances or see video of live performances. Nearly everyone with a cellular phone carries around a camera and a video recorder, and they upload their recordings to YouTube by the thousands every day. Those second-hand viewings and audios may not replace a visit to the Louvre or La Scala, but they do make the arts accessible. Local libraries have a service for their card holders that enables the patrons to download best sellers to their electronic readers or tablets, making a trip to the library, itself, unnecessary.
Men and women of ideas and artistic talent can create followings on the internet by daily writing and uploading to their own blogs. There is a better opportunity for artists in every medium to retain their integrity and freedom of expression if they let the public decide who shall succeed and who shall not rather than relying on funds that may have strings attached.