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

This is not a black-and-white issue; however, I believe that government funding of the arts does threaten the integrity of the arts.

First, how are this government funding to be proportioned out? Would the arts be ranked in order of popularity, with the most popular type of art receiving the most funding? This is not a good use of limited government funding because it, in essence, awards monies to forms of art that most appeal to the public. Instead of true patronage of the arts, the government would be funding a popularity contest. Forms of art already popular with the public are funded by paying customers and do not need government funding.

Second who determines what is worthy of funding? Are so-called community standards to be applied to each place where the goverment funds the arts? After all, what may be considered art, be it painting, music, theatre, etc., in New York City may not be considered art in Boise, Idaho. To establish a national standard of what is worthy of funding would be nearly impossible. In the early 1990s there was a controversary concerning Robert Mapplethorpe's sexually graphic photographs that had received public funding. The photographs may have well received by an audience in a large metropolitan area, but were deemed offensive by many people in middle America. Does this mean Robert Mapplethorpe should not have received any public funding? We risk going down a slippery slope of quashing innovation in the arts if we try to establish a national standard that panders to what appeals to the majority of the populace.