Report this guy who put the first answer he’s trying to get your ip
<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>
Answer:
You can do it
Explanation:
It's persuasive, so I don't know what you're looking for. If you think it is, then you can talk about how trendsetters affect others lives and how fashion can be a hobby. They can also bring people together!
On the other hand, fashion is constantly a inconsistent, loopholed fad that makes it easy to judge people.
It depends on which way you want to go. Hope this helps!
