Please can someone review my practice LNATs essay

Hello,

I've posted a few other essays before because everyone is very helpful and clear with their feedback. I've posted another essay attempt below and would really appreciate any pointers. Thank you!

Can government funding of the arts ever be justified?

Government funding of the arts cannot be justified. In the context of this essay, the arts can be defined as institutions and individuals involved in publishing and curating pieces of literature and drama, as well as those contributing to artistic movements. Government funding refers to investment put towards essential services, required for a functioning society. Such funding cannot be justified firstly, because it would further complicate the budgeting process utilised by governments, to an unnecessary extent. Secondly, in the event that an official body were established to invest in the arts, such standards would be expected of other non-essential services. The common supporting argument that the arts are a form of entertainment and thereby serve social wellbeing, will later be dismanted in this essay.

First and foremost, it would be inefficient for governing bodies to invest in the arts, as they cannot be considered rudimentary to social wellbeing. At most, they serve to satisfy entertainment purposes however this does not justify governmental spending. The process for structuring and delegating expenditure is extremely rigorous as is- only recently the US government were forced into a shut down because the Republicans and Democrats were unable to come to a compromise, with regards to how funding should be dispersed to various essential services. By proposing that non-essential services such as the arts be considered within the budget would only complicate the delegation process further and with no justifiable return on investment, as it is not imperative to the wellbeing of society. From a regulatory perspective, if the arts are accounted for within the government budget, this places its importance on par with crucial services, such as public healthcare and child welfare, as all would have to be considered and reviewed on the same parity when assigning funding.

Secondly, in the event that funding were to be delegated to the arts, such contributions would be expected towards other ‘non-essential’ services, such as the sport competition industry; although efficient in promoting exercise and personal wellbeing, it is not essential for social stability. It is logical to forecast that if governmental investment was put towards the arts, specialists and advocates for other entertainment services would argue and campaign for equal financial opportunities, for example through the delegation of government grants and bursaries. Even in the case of More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs), it would become increasingly difficult, from a financial perspective, to satisfy the needs of all entertainment services.

A common argument in support of government funding towards the arts, is that it serves to educate and entertain enthusiasts and the general public, thus offering recreational benefits. While this is true, this does not negate the aforementioned arguments, about the difficulties of funding, budgeting and with regards to social demand, satisfying the demands of other industries falling under the umbrella category of non-essential services. With regards to the educational purpose served by the arts, schools and academic institutions fulfill this, via the introduction and teaching of literature, art and performance studies. There are various financial solutions to propel the arts, such as crowdfunding, private investment and community collaboration.

In conclusion, government funding towards the arts cannot be justfied because of the unnecessary financial and budgeting burdens posed, as well as the likely increase in demand by advocates for other entertainment services, thus generating the liklihood of social unrest, in the event that such needs are not met.