这篇类 GRE Issue 英文原创写于2015年4月。当时那期「高级英文写作工作坊」里涉及到了这个主题的阅读和写作，作为工作坊发起人的我也写了一篇。

题目：Is governmental funding the best source for the arts?

习作

Among all the possible sources of funding for the arts, governmental funding, albeit imperfect, stands out as the best.

All other forms of funding are clearly inferior. It does not take long to list all the possible types of funding: personal donation, corporate philanthropy, NGO fundraising campaigns, and public funding. Be it one-off donation or month-to-month commitment, personal donation is sporadic and can be disappointingly unpredictable and unreliable. Whether or not to give and how much to give is largely a matter of mood, and almost always depends heavily on personal financial robustness. Corporate funding is no better. With the ultimate goal being maximizing profits and making sure shareholders are happy, corporate funding most likely goes after art projects that will promise the best public image, not ones that have greatest intrinsic value or potential. NGO fundraising campaigns may work, but can also let people down: many soliciting emails go unread or end up in spam.

In comparison, governmental funding is robust, resilient, reliable, and forward thinking. Government shoulders the responsibility of preserving the arts and educating the public. Though the share of funding for the arts varies depending on economic performance and general budget plan, it is more robust than other forms of funding. In the face of financial woes, government is better at turning the situation around. Its standpoint free from profit and its firm belief in the value in the arts help make sure that funding goes as planned. Most important, government is able to think forward and broadly. Valuable artists and art projects need continued attention, sustained funding, and unwavering support. Only government is able and willing to invest in their long-term well-being.

The qualities associated with governmental funding are critical for the arts. With reliable financial support, museums can be built and run, artifacts can be bought, staff can be trained, artists have access to showcase their works, and the public get benefited. Foundations and endowments are also possible. As an independent federal agency of the U.S. government, for example, the National Endowment for the Humanities is established by the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 and has dedicated itself to supporting research, education, preservation, and public programs in the humanities. The result is a wide range of beneficiaries: museums, archives, libraries, colleges, public television, radio stations, individual scholars and artists. Not to mention the general public. Without sustained support and sound plans from the government, the achievements of such extent are hardly thinkable.

However, imperfections of governmental funding are a constant reminder that oversight is necessary. Given the subjectivity of the arts of all kinds, it is impossible for anyone to be neutral about the arts. Scare resources mean that picking candidates necessarily excludes the unselected. Therefore, governmental funding should go to those arts that show the greatest value and extend a helping hand to the promising and struggling, not ones that represent the views of a particular party or political coalition. For this to happen, oversight is a must.

In conclusion, governmental funding is clearly superior to other alternatives, despite its flaws.