Joined: 19 Jan 2012
, given: 4
got GMAT tomorrow - please rate my AOI as well [#permalink]
09 Feb 2012, 05:47
just like my other topic with a similiar title, here's my AOI which i just typed in GMATwrite.
please let me know what you think.
Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response in the box at the bottom of the screen.
"Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
It is accepted by many that goverments should support the arts, yet some claim that the same governments should also restrict the art that is produced to ensure its quality, while others believe that such restrictions would only be detrimental to the quality of the artists' works. Despite being a controversial issue and by no means simple to resolve, a thorough analysis reveals how the benefits of placing restrictions on the arts are clearly outweighted by the negative aspects.
The first reason for this is that is not possible to evaluate art in an objective way. Paintings, music, sculptures and other pieces of art do not generate the same emotions in every person: for instance, even if many people consider "La Gioconda" by Leonardo Da Vinci to be an outstanding work, others despise it. Since governments are essentially formed by people, the ones who are called to judge wether a work of art is of value or not, and hence whether if to restrict it or not, they will always be biased because of their own taste, and might potentially censor what, for others, is an amazing masterpiece.
Even if one could argue that a benchmark for evaluating the work of an artist depending on how much it is appreciated by the public, by the critics, or by both, and subsequently restrict what is not considered of value, it is clear that this would be a risky policy. In fact, many artists are often not appreciated until late in their life, or after their death. A great example of this would be John Keats: regarded today as one of the greatest English poets of all time, he died believing himself a failure because his work was not appreciated in his time. Considering this, it is undisputable that restricting even what seems to be the most insignificant piece of art could potentially eclipse what in the future might turn out to be of extreme value.
Finally, even if it is arguable that restricting the support of art to what is considered 'of value' would incite artists to do their best and outperform themselves and their competitors, there is always the risk that this would result in pushing artists to create works that are appreciated by the vast majority of people instead of doing what they really believe in, and at the same time discourage artits who are not immediatly liked, hence reducing not only the quantity, but potentially the overall quality of the arts produced.
For these reasons, it is safe to conclude that, even though governmental restrictions on what is considered to be art without value might initially seem a good strategy to increase the quality of the art produce in a country and avoid wasting economic resources allocated to support arts, after a closer examination the best way to achieve art of real value, and avoid overlooking potential masterpieces, is to place absolutely no restrictions on the art that is made.