Public Funding For Public Art

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.

Sections One: Issue: Should the federal government be responsible for funding art programs (including art supplies/ tools, service training/staff, etc.) in public education establishments, or should those funds be made available by donation from private organizations or from other forms of sponsorship?

The author uses facts to build her argument and appeal to the reader. The use of this strategy provides a stable backing to her statement and provide likely reason to her claim. Gioia states, “According to the 2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, a population study designed and commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts, arts participation by Americans has declined for eight of the nine major forms that are measured… The declines have been

Art programs in schools across the nation are in danger of being diminished due to budget cuts and lack of funding. Due to budget cuts, “... schools have been relying more on private funds and patrons of the arts to provide creative outlets for students” (Hambek). Because art is deemed as less important than other core classes, budget cuts that have been put into place almost automatically go straight to cutting funds for art

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

Fine arts gives students a chance to pour their hearts into something beautiful; a chance to be a part of something that is bigger than just themselves. Some schools are facing financial troubles with the current economy, and one of the first programs they consider cutting is fine arts. The removal of fine arts programs would be absolutely devastating to countless members of the community. Many students would lose their favorite class, in some cases the one class that helps them get through the day, and many teachers that truly care fir the students would lose their dream jobs. Fine arts should not be cut from schools; they build confidence, help with the application of other academic concepts, and even help to prepare students for their

The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 states that it is up to the Federal Government to assist the local, state, regional and private agencies and artist in developing arts in the communities in several different ways. It also states that the Federal Government is to encourage freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent. Lastly, the Act states that it is to fulfill an educational mission and make widely available the greatest achievements of art “National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965”).

"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

For it is in our works of art that we reveal to ourselves and to others the

“Students who study art are 4 times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement and 3 times more likely to be awarded for school attendance” ("11 Facts about Arts in Education"). Music and art are clearly not two subjects that schools today can afford to cut off funding for based on this evidence. Music and art programs are responsible for increasing school attendance, which can lead to being one of the most important things in a student’s academic success in school. Students have to attend school and be present in order to attain the information from their classes and teachers if they wish to succeed. Better attendance means more students are in class, which means more students are getting the information they need to excel from their teachers, which ultimately means better grades and test scores for schools. As of today, arts are defined as core subjects in only twenty-six states in America (Mandel). If only twenty-six states are treating art education as a core subject, that means that twenty-four states are currently neglecting art programs and not considering them important to their student’s education. If more states are educated on the importance of art programs for young students, and the arts are defined as core subjects nationally, then there will be a

Public art catches an abundance of attention and the artist receives so much recognition, there’s no need for the government to show it off even more. Instead of the government using their money for art, they can use it on more important things, such as employment and education for people who have no money to do so. With the government investing in art, they will not benefit from it a whole lot. They will be able to show it off to the public but will receive nothing from this.

”Painting, writing, orchestra, band, choir these programs are the so-called money wasting according to the government. Some governments believe that if they take these programs away their budget will be more. They said they have done tests and evidence that shows how it does effect of course there is statistics and finances that show that. However, you cannot really base something we are born with based on a test. The Arts is a compelling thing some people are born with it some are not. It would not be fair to the kids who struggle in the core subjects like math and reading the kids who do not well let me tell you, you are lucky. Those kids are confident in the math and reading the kids who are not they feel ashamed of themselves that they cannot get a certain concept.

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.

Another possibly positive outcome of art in the public could be the affect that it may have on the younger generations. If children are being raised in a community where they can see art on a daily basis then I believe it will have a positive effect on their lives by allowing them to learn how to appreciate art and what it has to offer. Art being in the public is also a way to grant people, who do not have enough money to enjoy the luxury of going to a gallery, the pleasure of seeing something aesthetically appealing on a regular basis. It also makes a town more interesting to visit; no one wants to visit a town with not much excitement. I once went to an art festival in Baltimore, Maryland, where they had green marbles ground up and put into the black top roads. This sight alone made my heart race and made this town more exciting. For towns that may have tourism it could be a way to attract to coming there or maybe even staying.