Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of th

This is the topic we talked about the other day. Here are some essays and ideas. You can try to integrate them and come up with your own ideas when writing this essay by yourselves.

"Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts."

Essay 1:
Someone believes that government funding would harm the integrity of the arts. As in a profit motive directed society, purely financial support would not exist no matter whether is from individuals or the government. It is worried that Government would merely support the mainstream of the arts. Moreover, opponents would probably be afraid that such funding would cause much more politic involvement in artistic works. In my opinion, these worries are unnecessary. Government funding of arts would not threaten the integrity, and also might encourage the development of arts.

In order to maintain the integrity of the arts, artists should first have the right to create works freely. However, such rights sometimes are limited by their economic situation. Arts could not bring great cash profits to them especially to these young artists. Moreover, artists usually are unwilling to sale their works as they think works of arts are not commodities. As for that reason, financial support would be crucial to these artists and relative constitutions. If we say funding of arts from companies aims at commercial impact on their business, that from the government would focus on social impact on the general public: promoting arts among ordinary people. Obviously, the former one would demand artists whom received their funds to attend commercial activities or create specific artistic works, but the latter would only require artists to show to the public what is the beauty of arts, which would not hurt the integrity of arts, as the main function of arts is to show its beauty naturally.

In the second place, the diversified development of arts, like that of science and technology, is a main factor to assess the civilization level of a society. It is governments’ job to support such diversity. In addition, as the mainstream of arts is widely accepted by the public, it would certainly get more supports from other channels. So government would pay special attention to newborn artistic forms, for example, action arts. On the other hand, these newborn arts would not only continue the integrity of arts, but also show the impulse of the present society.

Although in history, we observed lots of negative examples for the integrity of arts threatened by the government funding, we had to admit the prosperity of arts is linked closely with the democracy of the society. So in societies as democratic as ours, we should draw a conclusion safely that government funding of the arts would not harm the integrity of arts. (413 words)


Essay 2:
I disagree with the statement “Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.” This is based on a kind of prejudice that depicts the government would interfere the creations of arts if government funds or supports the arts.

Let's go one thing straight: why does government funding of arts threaten the integrity of the arts? Those who support the argument might think as long as government patronizes the art groups or artists, it will limit these art creators to do what government wishes, not these creators really want to make. This point may be true, however, it does not affect the integrity and development of art.

When it goes to the art, most people will probably think about money. An invaluable, precious painting or sculpture costs nearly millions of dollars, like "sunflower" by Gogh, Vincent van. Not only do these famous arts cost expansive, but also it needs a lot of expenses to have an exhibition of arts in the city or to hold an art activity. If there is no money to support these kinds of activities in the city, how do the citizens know or appreciate the beauty of art?

Therefore, funding for art plays an important role to develop the integrity of the art. A number of rich men or enterprises will patronize the art, what's better, the government can fund and support. Because it means except political, diplomatic, and business affairs, government also focuses on the cultural and aesthetic activities. This might bring forth the prosperity of art in our society. Even if government has some concerns about a few advanced arts which may bring negative effects to society and asks to restrain them in the public, these advanced art works will still exist, but under the ground. In this point of view, we do not have to worry about the integrity of art would be threatened by government's limit.

From what has been discussed above, government funding of art does not threaten the integrity of art at all. Government which expends money to support art and relevant activities indeed does good to art itself and citizens under its realm. Through it may occur that there might be some limitations to a few art works, as a whole, the integrity of art still benefits from the funding of government. (386 words)



Essay 3:
Art is never stagnant; on the contrary, it always develops with time. So the integrity of art also keeps on changing with time. But some rules between art and government never change regardless of time or climate(地域).

Patronage from government will aggravate unjust competition because every particular government has its own angle in a given time, and government only sponsors genres catering to its interests. So governmental assistance might result in unjust competition among artists and an immoral group of artists with shabby products and high salaries, let alone some unworthy suppressing dissenters by cultivating magnates. That’s the reason why many useless daily newspapers could maintain a limited circulation, whereas a righteous weekend newspaper can’t provide readers further investigation into some terrifying man-made disasters. And here is another ridiculous example that in an internal conference a chief editor even told his underlings that from then on they should publish less elusive stories under the name of experiment because government would withdraw its financial support.

Actually, market, which has its inherent rationality, is a cradle of artists. It’s undeniable that populace’s changing taste plays an utmost role, nevertheless there are still many courageous artists get rid of the stale and bring forth the fresh. We all know that Peking Opera is not popular in the youths of today’s China, although once upon a time it stood for our national aesthetics trend. It’s true that in such a high-speed competitive time with a variety of western cultures, youth would like to sit hours quietly to enjoy stories handed down a hundred years ago without any innovation. A new play, by a distinguished director, mixed the merits of ballet and Peking Opera stirred uneasiness in some conservatives but won highly acclaim in audience. So we can see that there is always a huge market for art but only a man of insight can measure the pulse.

Art has undergone so many changes from primeval to present, what we now enjoy always is that free of government patronage. And civilian arts always osmosis royal sponsored art is a proof that art can hold its integrity by itself. (354 words)



Essay 4:
The integrity of arts can be promoted or stimulated in an air of freedom, so whether it be threatened or promoted depends on whether it be post how many limitations or no limitations.

The character of funding confines it to a process in which the selection of proper acceptor can not be randomly chosen and no matter loose or tight, a curtain kind of rules or requirements or limitations must be involved in such a process. So whether the integrity of arts be threatened or the degree arts be threatened based largely on the flexibility of the process. Less flexibility cannot avoid that it will preclude some qualified artists, whose art form are very possibly in the same urgent need for funding and indispensable to the arts as a whole, from competing for it.

Since most governments are representatives mainstream. Their evaluations of arts must be a reflection of popular. So governments need to be aware of this and consciously pay more attention to the less noticed art form, or their funding of arts will not achieve the ultimate goal to foster it. When the government builds up their funding for art, it should not have preferential weighting of one or another form of art in all art forms. The street performer should be weighed same valuable as the well-dressed singer who performs on a grandstand. While rich man can hire painter to draw their portraits, some funds from the government should go to the painter who draws for the poor, because poor also reflects one layer of status in society as the rich. Their lack of money can’t deprive the right to show their existence on art forms.

However in our contemporary society which we are bathed in such a culture that there seldom exists aimless activity, especially when money – the most primary form of funding is concerned, there must be some forms of interests expected from it. For example, if a government wants to invest on a movie, one can hardly expect the movie produced will stand the opposite side of that government. So the artists who are responsible for the movie have to speak for that government, their ingenuity and instincts for arts are filtered to meet the purpose of government.

The key factor over the debate whether government funding threatens the integrity or not depends on how may limitations the government posts on the funding, what the government should do is not to post too much criterions. The function that government funding to art should just as the love that parents to children, when the children are still young, the parents do everything they can to help them, when they strong enough, the parents just stay out of the way of their further development and let them develop their own characters freely. (466 words)


Essay 5:
If a writer accepts the funding of government and works for it, he/she becomes a hack. We often despise a hack because he/she has lost the integrity as a pure writer. His/her works are no more arts to the world any more, and can never last long. It is really sad for a writer to degrade into a hack; in the field of art, it is the same situation.

Art, despite its subject about politics, transcends politics, and thus is deemed as holy and disinterested. However, once funded and supported by the government, the impartiality of art will undoubtedly be affected. Because of the special status of government, its support to any stream or type of art would give the mass an impression that it is in favor of that art. Even if it doesn’t favor any special type and provide funding for the whole field, it still make people suspect of some kind of bribery.

Great artists won the respect of the people because they boldly express out what they truly feel inside. However, an artist, if supported by some governmental agent, even without any promise, would greatly discount their credit in people’s heart. Art, once connected with money, is no pure art any more. Moreover, people would doubt whether that artist could ever create any disinterested work without the influence of money.

If we take a look at the greatest works in history, we would find that some of them are even opposite to the government. Take an example of Picasso’s “Pigeon”. It was created under the compromising Spanish government under the historical situation of Nazism. It implicitly expressed people’s aspiration for peace, and also criticized the impotence of current government. It is hard to imagine any government would welcome artist to oppose it.

It is true that some artists, before they are recognized by the mass, lead a rather poor or even miserable life. In order to keep striving, they need some kind of material support. But still, it is not wise for government to stand up and give the boon. Charity organizations and artistic societies should give a hand at this time.

In sum, government should always keep away from funding arts even if it doesn’t have any special motif. (374 words)



Essay 6:
In recent years, the debate on whether or not government funding of the arts threatens arts’ integrity has caught into crossfire between people who in favor of it and those who disapproval of it. When discuss it, we’d better extend our understanding of what actual meaning is by the term ‘integrity’. First, ‘integrity’ can only be substantiated on the premise of its subject’s existence. Also, ‘integrity’ must assure its subject’s successiveness. As for the two hinges by the term ‘integrity’, I insist that government funding of the arts does not threatens arts’ integrity, but virtually contribute to its integrity.

Art is by no means a sublime thing that requires no material auxiliaries. Virtually, not only its production but its propaganda is indispensable of material things. Artists need canvases, brushes, pigments and much else to conceive their masterpieces. After the nativity of these masterpieces, artists further require museums, advertisements to propagate themselves for the masses’ recognition. The two processes of art production both require material things, or money. It is well-known that most of the artists are living in poverty or frugality. If we want to assure the existence of the arts, we must make the public aware of its function from time to time. On condition of poverty, how could we expect the arts to be propagated and, eventually be prosperous and thriving? However, government funding of the arts could serve the function to maintain its status in public and thus evade its fate of being neglected. From this point of view, we see funding of government do contribute to sustain the existence, one premise of its integrity, of arts.

In the second place, government funding is also conducive to maintain the successiveness of arts. How are the arts become possible? Of course a myriad of artists, talented or not. But how could these artists become realistic? Undoubtedly education. What are the essential elements of education? One will count on: arts schools, teachers, books, and much else. All these elements are inextricably involve funds. Since arts’ sublime purpose is to purify and edify people’s spirit, it is hard for arts to gain substantial profit to satisfy the money required to inculcate its successors. If deprived of government funding, from whence come the education and its products: artists? How could we appreciate the masterpieces in the next two decades? And from whence the probability of arts’ existence comes? At this atmosphere, arts are on the way of demise. Thus where comes the notion of its integrity? So, government funding is pivotal in cultivating arts’ successors.

Some may argue seriously that, on condition of government funding, arts’ content will be largely damaged since government exerts an extraordinary high pressure on the censorship of arts. Let’s consider this perspective otherwise. If deprived of government funding, can anyone refute undoubtedly that government will not censor the content of arts? Of course not. Whatever condition it would be, arts cannot evade the fate of being censored by government professionals, in part because it is government’s responsibility to ascertain the benign content of arts, and promise society’s stability, prosperity and thriving. Since the censorship of government is ineluctable, funding of government is definitely conducive to arts’ integrity—it’s better to have funds than none.

From what discussed above, it is obvious that government funding is not detrimental but beneficial to arts’ integrity. Fortunately, many governments have realized their function in arts’ development and are pouring increasingly more funds to sustain arts’ prosperity and integrity. (578 words)



Essay 7:
I cannot fully agree with the statement that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts. I believe that government funding is usually important to the development of the arts, thus propelling the integrity of them; but the funding may also ruin the integrity of the arts, for sometimes the government may have its own motive to support the arts.

Government funding provides financial support for the development of the arts. Some art schools are established by the government in an attempt to train artists. The government may also build national theaters to provide a place for the art activities.

Government support also prevents some kinds of arts from extinction. In this highly commercial society, many art activities are hold by profit concerns. Some rare arts with a long history may be threatened because they are unprofitable. Without non-government support, only the government funding can bring them to survive.

For some governments, arts in their nations may be obliged to serve the political objective of the governments. Under this circumstance, the integrity of the arts is ruined by lacking of art diversity. In China, there once was a culture revolution started by the government in an attempt to get rid of those kinds of arts which were considered harmful to the development of socialism. As a result, almost all of the arts had the sole purpose - to give tribute to the leader of a party. The integrity of the arts at that time in China was spoiled by the frenzy pursue to the leader.

In conclusion, we have to admit that government funding has provided financial support for the development of the arts. The integrity of the arts may be improved if the government imposes less political influences on the arts. (295 words)


Essay 8:
Art witnesses integrity which means diversity in genre and self-governed accomplishment process. Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts obviously because of so distinct the target that Art aims at inconstant aesthetics and fine indefinite sentiments while governments always adhere to a definite and decisive belief as a guidance.

Within A feudal regime , Art is a plaything for those aristocrats and landlords and those poets , painters or musicians funded by government all the time , although not all of them, work for whom feed them. The artistic works left to us are complete landscapes describing sumptuous lives and excessive luxury articles , although somewhat aesthetic , can not reflect sentiments of all and represent the integrity of the arts.

Also, adding the pecuniary ingredient to art leads latently to corruption and debauchment of artists and makes a negative impact on artistic production directions. Those funded guys make actions for governments not for art dreams, for instance, governments may could not ask a artist to produce an article whose theme is against them and those coercive actions result in art develops with one direction guided by governments. Another fact is government funding of the arts leads to potboilers in which many gainful guys want to make money by expedite production process and batch.

My opinion is that art might as well be funded by individuals such as connoisseurs and dealers who are interested in artistic works. As an individual, one may produce artistic works more easily for his or her interest but for other factors and although a few profiteers exists, the integrity of the arts can not be mangled by an individual . Van go, for example, a famous painter in nineteenth century funded by his brother for life who was a artistic works dealer , could not have been make any great work if he made his living in authority. Actually, he for life was in the contempt of government and his works was scorned and abandoned by authority until the time he was to die.

In conclusion, due to the diverse and erratic properties of the art and conformity and completion what governments require fundamentally, the intervention of governments into the art such as funding is a threaten to the integrity of the art. (382 words)


1.藝術決不是脫離物質存在的，這句話沒有錯，但是這種物質基礎和政府資助完全是兩碼事情， 個人資助完全可以達到這種物質基礎。
2.政府資助很容易使藝術家産生依賴，這本身就很容易使他們失去創造力和活力，要想藝術家創造出好地作品，就不能提供太好的環境，雖然聽上去很荒唐，但這被事實所證明。比如梵高，但丁，普希金。
3.政府資助，就有許多並不熱愛藝術的人附庸風雅，或者更甚者只是爲了獲得衣食的保障，藝術家就是那種明明知道這個行業可能導致一輩子貧困，但是還是全身心投入的人。
4.有人說，藝術來自於良好的教育，教育需要政府資助，我們不得不承認教育卻是對藝術有促進作用，但是不能說藝術來源於教育，事實上，許多沒有受到過良好教育的人最後也成爲了藝術家，前些年的垃圾工人兼詩人。
5.有人說，最民主繁榮的社會裏最容易産生藝術，一大部分原因因爲政府資助，但是，藝術的高潮期，恰恰是那最動蕩的時期，比如，文藝復興，資產階級大革命。


Essay 9:
Some of arts such as fiction spring from society, then they must be influenced by the politic atmosphere. Government, usually for the sake of society, funds arts in order to make the development of arts more healthy and increasingly. With cultivating of government, some art may obtain energy, and can attract many talent people in creating of this kind of art , then it can develop into a more advanced state. So Government funding of the arts cannot so much threaten the integrity of the art, but rather boost the development of some art, even prevent some art from exterminating.

In the modern society, many arts chase the purpose of profit, that is, if some kind of art can profit a lot from society, and then many artists may devote to it, such as pop music, disc dance. Government should play an important role in regulating the portion of various arts in society. The traditional art such as classic music, classic sculpture, the real gem of our nation have meet great obstacle in the process of development. In one hand, the majority of the youth can not enjoy this kind of artistic form, and so the concert of it profit far less than that of pop music, in the other hand with decreasing of income, some artist who make his professional fortune in this domain discards his work completely. So the function of the government should regulate this unbalance by funding this field greatly. The deed of government can assure the development of this art. The reservation of the ancient artistic works must be attended by government, because the exploration or digging of these works may ruin them and make great loss of the gem.

However, government’s direction of arts should not distort the development of art, since the strict censorship of artistic works may limit some different opinions. It is exactly these opinion that lead to great reform of society. In a democratic society, there should exit different opinions.

Government should participate in development of arts, but extremely direction may lead in bad result



Syllabus:
1.The development of any form of art is relied on funds.
2.Funds for the development of arts should not been provided merely by government.
3.However, as a cultural form, art has its own distinctive course which is different from politics, economy, and technology.


Essay 10:
In this epoch of rapid social transformation and cultural innovation, people have widely focused on the development of the arts. How to maintain the development as well as the integrity of the arts has become a pressing problem facing us. While someone argue that government funding of the arts will impair its integrity, I find no empirical evidence to support this argument, which in any event is unconvincing in light of a more persuasive notion that government funding will be beneficial to the development of the arts.

In such a market economic environment, the development of any form of art is relied on funds. Actually, no art can obtain effective improvement without the funds and we should realize that any development of art is unrealistic separated from the assistance of funds. To depict the relation between them more vividly: fund is to arts just what water is to fish. In China, national drama—Beijing opera has obtained stable development since the late nineteenth century, while many endemic dramas are depressing gradually even though they are as valuable as Beijing opera in a purely art concern. Why does this discrepancy occur? The most obvious factor is that Beijing opera is economically and politically supported by our government while other dramas cannot get a effective and stable financial assistance. If these other dramas can also obtain the sustain from government, it is very likely that they take a improvement no less vividly than Beijing opera.

Admittedly, funds for the development of arts should not been provided merely by government. A more comprehensive field such as organizations, corporations, and even individuals can all be the reliance for art development. And practice has attest that only depend on government to provide financial assistance will be insufficient and exacerbate the government financial burden in the same time. Moreover, many organizations and corporations express their strong willingness to participate in the art assistance. Although their incentives may differ—some eager to enhance the art culture of their employee, some desire to enhance their corporation reputation, and also some sincerely devote to art—they have all contributed to the art development. In this case, we should exploit our ken of the source of art funds.

However, as a cultural form, art has its own distinctive course which is different from politics, economy, and technology. Excessive reliance on government funding of the arts may impair the independence and the integrity of the art itself. In order to obtain the government fund, artist may have to meet criteria set by the government and thus get involved in the political issues. Furthermore, art works of those funded artists may be utilized by government for political use and the artists are under pressure. Thus, art will deviate its own way and become a byproduct of politics.

In summary, while we necessitate the government funding of art, we should also realize that excessive government interference to art would lead to disadvantageous, and to some extent, even harmful consequence. We need to steer a delicate philosophical course between them. If we wish to construct a theory of art development, we would be well advised to place it within the framework of a more effective theory that funding of art should rely on government, organizations, corporations, and individuals as a whole. Our theory is then more likely to be compared and contrasted with other theories with some degree of dispassionate distance.



PERFECT WRITING
My opinion: Government funding can support the development of the arts, but some desire of government will affect the integrity of the arts if the arts depend completely on government funding.
1.Government funding can help to hold some large art activities to accelerate the progress of art.
2.When the departments of arts are lack of capital, government funding can prevent the arts from bogging down, and push the arts forward.
3.Sometimes, government will impose its own wish on the arts without proper reasons when it offers fund to the arts, which will influence the integrity and direction of the arts.
Artists usually get financial support from enterprises, individuals as well as the government. While fundings from companies and individuals, in most cases, are bounded to some kinds of commercial profit, funding from the government is of less such purposes, and if properly regulated, is beneficial to the development of arts.



The integrity of the arts, in my view, provides a healthy environment, where artists have more freedom to carry out there work, and all kinds of art is proportionally developed. Furthermore, the development of the arts is beneficial to most people. Therefore, funding of the arts should not be related to any special purposes which may impair such a healthy environment.

It is no doubt that the development of arts needs money. Funding from enterprises helps a lot to support the artists, however, the objective of those companies is to maximize their profits. Such financial support is therefore usually bounded to the profits of the companies, and have potential harms that the arts will develop in a special direction favored by the companies. On the contrary, funding from the government are less purposive and often under the supervision of the people in that country, so that the arts may be less distorted.

Government founding with proper regulation can benefit the development of all kinds of art. For some kinds of art, financial supports are difficult to obtain from enterprises or individuals. The government can balance the development of various kinds of arts by supporting those arts.



Position: Qualifies
Keys: government funding, threaten, the integrity of arts
Syllabus:
1.Government funding of the arts will definitely have some influences on the arts. But it can’t be said that it will threaten the integrity of the arts. In some cases, it tends to promote the integrity.
2.The purpose of the government funding of the arts is to promote that kinds of mainstream arts that advertises its political ideas. Thus sometimes the confliction between the artist’s ideal and the reality is sure to happen.
3.However, the arts is also concerned with some topics of common interest, such as environment protection, social morals. In such cases, the government funding will provide the necessary support thus promoting the integrity.
4.The integrity of the arts can’t be altered or threatened by outside factors. It’s the artist’s conscience and duty to keep it.