In Order To Speak To The Issue Of The Proposed Federal

Every day we see art whether it is a pattern, sculpture, or even a picture. Art is everywhere. For artists to show their work they would go under the government process of the NEA. This program is wonderful on what they do with art. The government funding of art through the NEA is beneficial which helps art programs increase with money donations, the right to express your freedom, and lastly to show the public what they are wanting to see.

The NEA is an organization that helps artist and community enjoy and publish art by donating and exhibiting pieces of art that is approved by their own company . Artist that work for the NEA are proud workers as well as proud co workers that do things they love everyday. Donations are made by the NEA and have helped organizations tremendously and efficently. Although, the NEA has good intentions others disagree. The placement of donations goes to only organizations that meet the NEA requirements and one requirement has brought hatred and disapproval too many organizations, citizens, and artist. People of all kind enjoy different art and expect art to leave a different impression and lesson for everyone . Agreement and disagreement towards

Throughout history there have been many public funding’s that contributed to the world of art. Whether anyone realizes it or not, artists have a lot of responsibilities to try and please the public when they are working for the public. Also, there are numerous regional issues that greatly influence decisions about publicly funded art. Art is very important when forming a sense of nation character, therefore, we should support the public funding of art in America. Art is an important part of society and it can also be a very valuable part of our everyday lives. However, there are many positive and negative effects when it comes to the public funding of art in America. Supporters claim that subsidizing the arts pays for itself. These supporters suggest that the arts are what drive the economy of businesses within a community.

Having posted this on World-Post, which is a news and blog website created through a partnership between Liberal news aggregator Huffington Post and a nonpartisan powerhouse, the Berggruen Institute on Governance, allows for this essay to not get exposed to the pro STEM or anti-arts parties. Sparking up the discussion of reintroducing the arts back into everyday society’s curriculum, you need to direct this essay towards both the audience, and the individuals who have the power to make this change. If Ma bring up a primarily pro-art focused paper, and only shares this piece of writing with mostly fellow supports of the arts, Ma misses the “equilibrium” that he spoke so highly about. If we can’t have both sides of the spectrum be able to analyze and discuss the ideas presented in this paper, then it’s going to be close to impossible to enact any change within society to reintroduce more of the arts back into

Above all, I wouldn’t be where I am today without theatre. Without the chance to perform throughout my life, I would be disconnected from the wide array of communities and histories that’s been imbedded in my daily routine. Unfortunately, it’s speculated that the theatre is a dying art form, because of the expanding popularities of movies (“Is”), but I think that it’ll remain a well renowned part of expressing imagination and interpreting history as years pass; it only takes cooperation with school faculty and young students that go above and beyond to change their

The National Endowment for the Arts is an independent agency of the federal government specifically designed to support and enhances the art community for minority groups. The NEA was founded in 1965 and has controlled the art community ever since. This has aided in censoring works of supposedly obscene and controversial art. The elimination of the NEA, or making it a private organization, would free much needed public tax dollars to go to more important parts of the nations budgets, as well as open the art communities up for the freedom to exhibit the controversial pieces of art work the NEA deems inappropriate.

The National Endowment for the Arts was created by an act of the U.S Congress in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government of the U.S. Congress created the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) to support and fund projects displaying artistic excellence. The grant money that the NEA receives comes from American taxpayers, furthermore that money has been used to fund art and more that are labeled “controversial”. In March of 2017, the Trump administration made a proposal to eliminate federal funding for the program. The NEA is a wonderful program that helps bring light to controversial subjects, creates regulations, and free speech.

"Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?" If some people in this country have their way, and funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is cut, then the answer to that question will be no. Many people in this country want the federal government to remove the NEA from the national budget or at least cut back on its funding. Some of these people do not think that the Endowment is necessary, other people argue that the agency funds too many artists who create works that are off ensive to a majority of people. Though it may be true that some of the work recently produced has been offensive to a large number of people, it is not a reason to remove a very useful government program. The NEA provides jobs,

Visual artists fell through the gaps and did not receive federal support for their work until the creation of the NEA or National Endowment for the Arts in 1965. This federal program had little funding but proved a growing interest in art and art viewing from the public. This demand for art creates a demand for funds to support venues and museums so they can keep their doors open. A problem with the NEA is that they provide government funding, which prevents them from being biased about

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which supports and helps fund artist and art programs has constantly been criticized since it was formed in 1965 by congress under Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency. This isn't the first time that the NEA has faced budget cuts and possible elimination. Thu-Huong Ha writes in her article, “People have been trying to get rid of the National Endowment for the Arts for 36 years.” The NEA's value has often been questioned by the federal government calling it a “bloated waste of public money and criticizing it as a funder of obscenities” (Ha). The budget cuts began after Ronald Regan's initial proposal to eliminate the NEA in 1989 which led instead to the budget being reduced by 10%. Next in 1989 and 1990 the

The duty of the National Endowment for the Arts is to foster the growth of the

IATI Theater relies on the generosity of donors such as yourself and it’s grateful for your support, your support helped us reach our goal of $250,000. Once we reach $250,000 IATI will be eligible to receive grants and funding from government and private foundations that were previously unavailable to us.

All is well on my new farm, just got my first harvest. But, I’m still in shock from the last letter when you sided with the Federalist. Our ideas are completely separate from theirs. They wish for America to become a profit-seeking industrial nightmare. Anything we need we can produce ourselves. If we all adapt to the Federalist ideals then we will end up the same as the British. Plus they only favor the rich and elite, commoners like us have no place with them. Who we side with now is crucial to the future of America which is why I think you should reconsider.

time to visit museums. When public art is funded by the government, the artist’s imagination is

A majority of the nation, up until recent visual and performance art legislation was proposed in congress, hadn't been made aware that they, the taxpayers, were supporting any form of art. It wasn't until the recent attacks on the NEA, an agency designed to fund grants to certain projects, that taxpayers paid attention. The government's funding of the arts is a highly controversial issue that argues some of the most basic philosophical questions regarding the subjective and objective views of aesthetic value.