GRE Issue Topic 82

Sample 1:

Some may believe that art is a luxury and has little to do with people's basic needs. When a country is facing economic challenges, it seems easy and logical to eliminate or reduce funding for the arts. Even on a local level, school boards often recommend cutting art classes and music programs when budgets are strained. Others contend that the arts are an essential part of life and education. Evidence exists in both history and science that supports sustaining the arts even when funding them seems inappropriate.

During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt and Congress created numerous projects that put unemployed Americans to work. Among them was the Federal Writers Project which paid both professional and amateur writers to produce pieces that reflected the culture of the country. Despite criticism, the project continued for four years, eventually employing teachers, librarians, and college graduates. The result was a collection of oral histories, state informational guides, children's books, ethnographies, and other works. National funding for the arts during America's greatest financial crisis actually alleviated unemployment and preserved our cultural identity.

It is difficult to imagine what other countries would know about America or what Americans would know or understand about other countries without the arts. Before the advent of photography, painters provided depictions of the great cities of Europe as well as scenes of daily life. Writers like Charles Dickens illuminated the turmoil in Paris during the French Revolution in A Tale of Two Cities. The Russian composer, Tchaikovsky, composed the 1812 Overture to commemorate the Russian army's defense of the motherland against Napoleon's invading army. Fireworks displays in America would lack drama without the accompaniment of that piece of music. Lack of government funding for the arts in school or for public performances diminishes the ability to identify with the struggles that all humans have faced.

Funding the arts during challenging economic times today can help people meet their basic needs. A theater production requires many people to fill all of the jobs necessary to bring the project to fruition. In addition to actors, a play requires people to construct sets, provide lighting, sew costumes, and apply makeup. Someone must sell tickets, and others need to clean the theater each evening. Funding an orchestra provides work for dozens of musicians. When all of these individuals earn paychecks, they can provide food, shelter, and clothing for themselves.

Knowledge of the human brain informs us of the connection between music and learning. Students who have had music lessons consistently perform better on standardized tests and get higher grades in math courses. Music also has health benefits. Music and dance therapy are used in combination to help stroke victims regain or improve movement. People with autism also receive benefits from music therapy. Failure to fund the arts on an institutional level can reduce the ability of individuals to achieve their full potentials.

I recently visited the Detroit Institute of Art which is home to an impressive Diego Rivera mural which covers four walls of a large room and depicts scenes from the auto industry, the foundation of the greatness Detroit once experienced. Since then, Detroit has declared bankruptcy, and one suggestion to ameliorate its financial burden is to sell the great works of art housed at the DIA. In the short term, the idea may seem to have merit, but removing access to symbols of the city's culture along with representations from other cultures and periods of history may only further impoverish this once–great city.

Monetary considerations cannot stand alone when considering the value of a country's artistic tradition. Making the connection between funding the arts and unemployment and hunger may be a stretch. To assume that canceling the funding will alleviate or eliminate unemployment and hunger in a country arises from a misunderstanding of abstract benefits versus concrete ones. A country's aesthetic health is as important as its physical wellbeing.

Suspending government funding for any program is fraught with risk and may put the existence of the program in limbo for an extended period of time or eliminate it altogether. The funding that was once earmarked for the arts may be impossible to retrieve from other programs to which it has been diverted.