-
workingonit
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:21 am
can anyone tell me why this is not a 6? How can it improve?
Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response in the box at the bottom of the screen.
"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."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
---
Some people think that the government is responsible for supporting the arts and must not restrict the art that is produced. Others believe that the government is not required to support the arts, but if it did so no restrictions should be placed. This issue is controversial but a closer examination reveals that government is not responsible for funding the art, but if it does, it must do so without restrictions.
One reason is that most governments are mandated to protect its citizens and preserve order within the state, not to support art projects. Because government agencies are funded by the tax money from its citizens, the government should only support projects that benefit the majority of the populous. If the majority do not view art as adding valuing to their everyday lives, then the government should not be responsible for supporting art. However, if a significant portion of the population votes for the government to support the arts, then the government should do so. Recent surveys have shown that people would like the government to fund the arts only if they agreed beforehand. In essence, supporting the arts is an option the government can choose if the populous favors such actions.
Another reason is that the government has a responsibility to preserve free speech within the country. If it were to support art, then the government must do so without placing restrictions on the type of art that is funded. By placing selectivity or restrictions on certain types of art, the government would be imposing constraints on free speech. To illustrate, the government of China supported the public arts in the 1920s. However, officials only chose to support art that portrayed the government in a favorable light. Any art that showed the country as weak would receive no funding. As a result, many artists could not illustrate their true feelings of the government and thus, human rights were violated. From a humanitarian perspective, governments should not place restrictions on art because it is a form of expression.
On the other hand, some may argue that the government does have responsibility to support the arts because art is part of a country's heritage. However, the government can protect the country's heritage without supporting the arts. For example, it can actively protect art that is already made by supporting museums that preserve art and the country's heritage without supporting art production. The problem with actively supporting the arts is that some people may object to having their tax money spent on such endeavors and that the government may impose significant influence on the type of art produced. Therefore, the government should preserve the country's history without actively funding art production.
In summary, arguments can be made for both sides, but it is clear that the government is not required to support the arts. However, if it did choose to do so, the government should not restrict the type of art produced. While requiring the government to support the arts may sound like a good idea, it is an unnecessary duty for the government. Hence, the country should be able to choose if it publicly supports the arts and no restrictions should be placed on art production.
Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response in the box at the bottom of the screen.
"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."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
---
Some people think that the government is responsible for supporting the arts and must not restrict the art that is produced. Others believe that the government is not required to support the arts, but if it did so no restrictions should be placed. This issue is controversial but a closer examination reveals that government is not responsible for funding the art, but if it does, it must do so without restrictions.
One reason is that most governments are mandated to protect its citizens and preserve order within the state, not to support art projects. Because government agencies are funded by the tax money from its citizens, the government should only support projects that benefit the majority of the populous. If the majority do not view art as adding valuing to their everyday lives, then the government should not be responsible for supporting art. However, if a significant portion of the population votes for the government to support the arts, then the government should do so. Recent surveys have shown that people would like the government to fund the arts only if they agreed beforehand. In essence, supporting the arts is an option the government can choose if the populous favors such actions.
Another reason is that the government has a responsibility to preserve free speech within the country. If it were to support art, then the government must do so without placing restrictions on the type of art that is funded. By placing selectivity or restrictions on certain types of art, the government would be imposing constraints on free speech. To illustrate, the government of China supported the public arts in the 1920s. However, officials only chose to support art that portrayed the government in a favorable light. Any art that showed the country as weak would receive no funding. As a result, many artists could not illustrate their true feelings of the government and thus, human rights were violated. From a humanitarian perspective, governments should not place restrictions on art because it is a form of expression.
On the other hand, some may argue that the government does have responsibility to support the arts because art is part of a country's heritage. However, the government can protect the country's heritage without supporting the arts. For example, it can actively protect art that is already made by supporting museums that preserve art and the country's heritage without supporting art production. The problem with actively supporting the arts is that some people may object to having their tax money spent on such endeavors and that the government may impose significant influence on the type of art produced. Therefore, the government should preserve the country's history without actively funding art production.
In summary, arguments can be made for both sides, but it is clear that the government is not required to support the arts. However, if it did choose to do so, the government should not restrict the type of art produced. While requiring the government to support the arts may sound like a good idea, it is an unnecessary duty for the government. Hence, the country should be able to choose if it publicly supports the arts and no restrictions should be placed on art production.
