This is the first in what is intended to become a series of weekly posts, each about a specific topic, each being written for the overall purpose of practicing my writing and analytical thinking. Several friends are also part of this endeavor, each of us writing about the same topic on our own blogs.
Before completing the planning for this first post I can already sense that the process will be tweaked so as to best allow me to practice what I’m looking to practice. Currently I’m limiting myself to an hour’s worth of writing so that I don’t spend an “undue” amount of time on this–yet the issue I already have in mind is that time does have to be invested in the pursuit of improvement. How much time, though, that’s one of the important questions.
My lord, I’m almost boring myself and I’ve barely begun to write. I also haven’t quite decided what kind of “tone” I ought to write with for these subjects. This first topic, for instance, is from a list of GRE-type prompts. Not having taken the GREs, nor having had any conversations with people knowledgeable about the preferred writing “style”, I don’t know if I ought to write in a more serious tone as opposed to writing my preferred light-hearted bantering tone. Thinking about writing tone and style now, I can already see this branching off into a separate post haha–sometimes my writing is dry when I read it, and other times vibrant! You might be able to tell that I prefer the vibrant; I like things zesty 🙂
Let’s see what happens; and more than that, let’s observe and then improve!
My latest idea, now that it’s already late Sunday night, is to post what I do have–an outline of the post to be written–so that my thought process is partly revealed.
Prompt (Topic 7 from this list):
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.
I was presented with a question about whether government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people.
– before there was formal government, people made and spread art: visible art, auditory art, sensory art.
– government funding gives “the arts” a greater sense of legitimacy, normalizes it
– gov’t funding wouldn’t necessarily ensure that arts would be available to all people–the availability of something doesn’t necessarily ensure that it is accessible to all people
I believe that the integrity of the arts is only threatened by government funding if that funding is exclusive as opposed to being inclusive.
– Hook, conflict?
– Agreement, context
– Thesis: Government funding of the arts is beneficial but not necessary for the flourishing and widespread availability of the arts and can be provided without diluting artistic integrity.
– Arts of all sorts proliferated before the earliest governments.
– Government funding of the arts would not unerringly lead to the arts becoming available to all people.
– The art that people value survives, and the art that is not valued can possibly be lost.
– Addressing a counterargument
– One common argument against government funding for the arts is that this funding threatens and can co-opt the integrity of the arts. I agree that integrity breaches are a legitimate concern, but that they exist in any and arguably all people-related endeavors! Organizations and ideas ultimately can’t have or lack integrity–it is people who have or lack integrity, and whose works subsequently are affected. The fear of lost integrity for the arts, then, actually translates to artists who lose their integrity, who in doing so co-opt their art. In order to address the problem of integrity-lacking people, an objective system (itself fairly developed) may work best to bypass the subjective opinions of people. An objective system that gives all artists a fair chance at obtaining government funding would be an optimal way to guard against the government interjecting its own agenda through selective funding.
Arts of all sorts proliferated before the earliest governments.
The arts existed and proliferated before the question of government involvement became relevant. In that vein, government funding of the arts can’t be said to be necessary to ensure that the arts flourish–but the additional funding combined with the effect of legitimacy certain helps.