▶ Your Answer : Some people thinks that the government funding of the arts will give the positive impact on the arts and the public, but it also frighten the creativity of the arts. In some aspects, I fully agree with the two points of the view. The government funding can give opportunities for both artists and general people to enjoy and improve the arts. The origin purpose of the government funding, however, is quiet different from the advance of the art itself. To begin with, government funding would be able to maximize the opportunity of people to see the arts. To illustrate, Lotte group, one of the big company in Korea, held the artistic event periodically, and it have given a chance for people to see the famous artifacts including picture of the Picasso. Likewise, public museums have a lot of artistic events that people can readily pay for seeing it. Generally to see the famous master piece in other country is needed to expense huge money that have flight fare. Although all people in Korea could not participate in public artistic events held in public museum and lotte tower, these effort for the arts should be continue to give a chance as much as possible the government can support. On top of that, the economical stability supported by government funding would guarantee the development of the arts. Unless the artist do not have enough money for everylife, he and she have to find temporary job or part time job to earn money. In considering that career activities are usually related to economical profit, those circumstance might force the artist to create a commercial piece not an artistic one. However, government funding is able to give them economical freedom and will make possible to encourage diverse new attempts of the arts. By receiving the support of the government artists are able to concentrate on their works and it will improve the realm of the arts. Government assets, however, can circumscribe the activities of the artists. The purpose of the funding is for the flourish of the arts, but the upper purpose of that is for the service for the public. In many cities, many artists supported by the government funding work in the public class such as piano class for the elder or children. It is not mean that all cities require the artists to teach the public, but it also reveal that whether the artists can concentrate on their own work or not is depends on the city policy. It seems that government asset for the arts would not fully used for it’s purpose. To sum, public funding will give great chance for the people, but it will be deal with only artistic purpose for its development. The policy which ultimate the positive effect and minimize the negative effect should be considered in a city counsel. |