I think that if you are talking about Latin it means an incomplete action
<span>As the fiscal year comes to a close, it’s well worth our time to take a close look at the way local
governments are budgeting tax dollars. With high unemployment rates and rising rents and
food costs across the nation, every one of those dollars matters immensely—and none of them
should be wasted on funding for public art. I’ll be the first to admit that, even during difficult economic times, </span>
<span>people need the arts to offer commentary, philosophy, and amusement. I am, in fact, a great supporter of the arts, and I regularly donate to arts organizations. The arts need money; they just don’t need government
money.
Cutting government funding for public art frees up tax dollars for indispensable government
necessities that protect the safety and well-being of citizens, such as road building and
maintenance, healthcare, housing, and education. Directing would-be arts funding into other
programs is not only beneficial for those areas in need of more crucial government support; it is
also good for artists and the art itself.
Art is, by its very nature, expressive and controversial. The best art represents an individual
point of view that is critical, imaginative, and eye-opening. This kind of ingenuity requires
freedom and independence on the part of the artist. When the government provides funding
for public art projects, the artist loses freedom. When using public funds, the artist is
constrained by the need to represent the point of view of the government and to gratify the
general public. There are countless stories of public art pieces being altered, censored, or even
destroyed when the public exerted its authority over the work. Naturally, this situation results
in a loss of personal freedom for the artist and an abundance of mediocre public artwork.
The financial solution to producing high-quality, provocative art is private funding. If we allow
the market to drive the production of art, artists and art-lovers will have a greater influence on
the art being created and shown to the public. Already, private funding accounts for most art
being created in America. In 2008, a record-breaking 858 million public dollars was spent on the
arts by local governments in the United States. This sum pales in comparison to the 12.79
billion private dollars donated to the arts in the same year. And the high number of private
dollars donated to artists is of course supplemented by the money that collectors spend on
buying art in auction houses and galleries. Statistics show us that art can and does flourish
without public funding. In fact, for centuries great masterpieces have been created without
government money. Masters such as Shakespeare and Leonardo da Vinci had private funders,
and their masterpieces continue to influence generations around the world.
In light of this evidence, I offer a strong suggestion for the coming fiscal year: Let’s stop the
move towards government-funded public art projects and encourage private donors to invest in
the creation of high-quality, uncensored art. We don’t need public art pieces that incite
controversy, upset some of the taxpayers who helped pay for them, and give the government
the power of censorship. We need public funding to provide the necessities of health, safety, and education to our nation’s citizens. We also need a thriving private art market that allows
artists financial independence and freedom of expression.</span>
In the story, The Last Leaf, Johnsy and Sue paint pictures together. Johnsy has been diagnosed with pneumonia and their visit to the doctor proves that she will die soon.
Explanation:
This story gradually moves from a very usual, routine life of two young girls to individuals, where one who want to fight for making an other feel better and worthy to live, while another seems to fail to understand what it actually is to fight the disease/illness.
Here, when Old Behrman paints a leaf outside for Johnsy, that is when she realizes that she must fight and defeat the illness, rather letting it defeat her.
Sue and Old Behrman's idea of making Johnsy realize what it takes to be alive, takes away Behrman's life at the end as he catches pneumonia too, because of the cold weather he was standing in while painting the leaf for Johnsy.
To give in to illness in the beginning but realizing how important it is to be resilient, is what we learn from this story.
Answer:
This essay is about my opinion on why I think that children should be able to go to neighbourhood schools.
I believe this because It would have a better impact on the world and our surroundings for example, if children were in neighbourhood schools the transport use in the area would be less, putting less pollution in our air. If I child goes to a school far away on a bus it’s not as bad as that bus can hold up to 20-25 people. therefore 1 vehicle- 20 students. Whereas if students take their own car and everyone takes their own cars there Is more vehicles with less human transport.
They would feel more comfortable in and out of school for example they would be closer to home for emergencies. If they know there way around and are used to the area then the children should then feel more safer in a more comfortable, close-to-home environment.
If children come across as ill during school it is a less drive putting less pollution in the atmosphere, or they could even walk home.
Children having houses nearer school would make it easier if the children wanted to go have lunch at home or in the town, then return to school after the break.
If they leave then neighbourhood, they wouldn’t take as much pride in the town as a community
There may be some disadvantages to going to a closer school such as, to get the grades you need for your dream job may depend on the quality of the school itself.
Statistics show that school effectiveness studies show that the importance of schools on child academic progress doesn’t make much of a difference. But statistics show shat children feel more safer in a closer school.
In conclusion I believe being in a closer school is beneficial.
Grace
it allows for you to precisely focus on one part of a broad topic. It allows for you to be able to point out the minuscule details within a topic versus focusing on the broad topic of a whole.
