GMAT Essays (AWA)

"Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced."

My Response

The debate over government interference in the arts, is one that has raged on since time immemorial. During the Renaissance artists were instrumental is capturing the public mood and outcry that prevailed amongst citizens against their respective governments. While some people may argue that if the government supports the arts, it receives an automatic right to censor and only allow what it deems fit. However these people overlook that art is essentially an expression of the artists feelings and a government surely cannot correctly determine what art should be restricted or not. For this reason I agree that government restriction is unwarranted when it comes to the arts.

How can one not enjoy a classic movie such as The Sound of Music or Gone With The Wind? All of us have sought refuge in the soothing sounds of music, regardless of its genre. Thousands of people throng everyday at the Louvre museum in Paris to see Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece - the Mona Lisa. The examples above purely illustrate the role that art plays in our daily lives and its importance. Thus governments should ensure that the arts are supported and flourish.

However by supporting the arts, the Government does not receive the right to restrict what constitutes an acceptable form of art and what does not. For instance while grafitti artists were initially considered vandals by local governments, the modern public realises the benefits of allowing youth and artists to freely express themselves. Restrictions of any kind would dampen the very essence of art - expression. The world would have suffered an irreparable loss had the works of Michaelangelo, Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci been censored due to their occasional use of erotica.

The arts play a vital role in capturing the current moods of the population. Governments should use art as a valuable feedback channel and harness art to create a timestamp of our culture and ideals that will be showcased for the years to come. As it is often said, history is too often written by the winner, and by policing art the government risks providing a strongly stunted and possibly one dimensional view of the world to the children and citizens of tomorrow's world.

It is for these above reasons that I strongly agree with the issue that the governments should not place any restrictions on any kind of art form. Art is an expression and a government can never accurately state what is acceptable or not as society's tolerance is not a static measure, but rather a dynamic evolution over time. What might be considered unacceptable today, might be the voice and fashion of the future, as can simply be illustrated by the evolution of rock music which was considered taboo and unacceptable when it was first unveiled.

This is definitely a 6.0 irrespective of whether I know or not what constitutes a 6.0

Extremely well-organized thoughts provided with exemplary examples and much more.

Thanks.

Thanks a lot Kanha81 - I plan to do two more tomorrow, just to make sure I have this covered but your feedback is really appreciated!