Argumentative Essay
Drew Houser
Robin Sonstegard
English 1100
15 October 2013
Funding the Arts The United States, as a whole, depends immensely on the development of arts programs, big or small. Americans need the sense of culture and social gathering, and what could possibly be better to do on a Friday night than hear the local orchestra play or catch the next town over’s middle school production of The Wizard of Oz? The funding of arts departments in schools, colleges, and universities is absolutely imperative to the United States in more than one way: the arts condone a universal language spoken and understood by all, help US citizens to develop and define culture, and provide a necessary outlet to every age group across the country. First of all, the arts foster a universal language that no other program or department of study can compete with. Van Gogh’s Starry Night is just as meaningful in Venice, Italy as it is in Tokyo, Japan; each part of the arts has the ability to astound and create beauty anywhere and everywhere despite language, race, nationality, gender, and education. A common argument for the funding of the arts is that the arts are a “public good” and provide service that simply exists and shouldn’t have to be paid for. While sometimes the arts don’t offer this service themselves, they offer social services that do. This long-used argument complements “the idea that the arts benefited those beyond their direct consumers through the channels of national prestige, heritage preservation, and education” (Saunders 594). The prominence of the arts all over the world is a justifiable reason for giving every last person a basic knowledge and understanding of the arts. Defunding arts departments across America is not the right way to go about doing this. Funding the arts’ should be radically important to Americans due to the effect the arts programs and their participants have on the American culture. While culture seems trivial to many, its’ development actually
Robin Sonstegard
English 1100
15 October 2013
Funding the Arts The United States, as a whole, depends immensely on the development of arts programs, big or small. Americans need the sense of culture and social gathering, and what could possibly be better to do on a Friday night than hear the local orchestra play or catch the next town over’s middle school production of The Wizard of Oz? The funding of arts departments in schools, colleges, and universities is absolutely imperative to the United States in more than one way: the arts condone a universal language spoken and understood by all, help US citizens to develop and define culture, and provide a necessary outlet to every age group across the country. First of all, the arts foster a universal language that no other program or department of study can compete with. Van Gogh’s Starry Night is just as meaningful in Venice, Italy as it is in Tokyo, Japan; each part of the arts has the ability to astound and create beauty anywhere and everywhere despite language, race, nationality, gender, and education. A common argument for the funding of the arts is that the arts are a “public good” and provide service that simply exists and shouldn’t have to be paid for. While sometimes the arts don’t offer this service themselves, they offer social services that do. This long-used argument complements “the idea that the arts benefited those beyond their direct consumers through the channels of national prestige, heritage preservation, and education” (Saunders 594). The prominence of the arts all over the world is a justifiable reason for giving every last person a basic knowledge and understanding of the arts. Defunding arts departments across America is not the right way to go about doing this. Funding the arts’ should be radically important to Americans due to the effect the arts programs and their participants have on the American culture. While culture seems trivial to many, its’ development actually