I. OUTLINE:
Who: government and the artists.
What: The government tries debating whether to spend more money on other projects and less on art.
Where: In the United States of America.
When: 50 years ago ~now
Why: Not enough money in the budget to spend on everything.
How: Arguing whether we should keep the arts money or spend on other things that are more important.
II. SUMMARY: In Los Angeles Time, the article “A milestone for American culture” by Marcus E. Howard explains the argument of giving money for National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The author states “At $150 million each, the budgets for the two endowments represent less than 1% of federal discretionary spending.” …show more content…
Since it is less than 1% of the federal discretionary spending, government shouldn’t take that away from the people who like the arts. Even though some people take the money and make some inappropriate “arts”, there are many great artists that have made great things. If the government takes away the money, then they won’t have as many works of art as we have right now. Great works of art define our National culture. They inspire future artists to continue to use their talents and imagination to create new works of art. As the result, I think the government shouldn’t take away the money that it is giving to the arts.
IV. RELEVANCE: This article is relevant to me because I like the arts. If the government really stops giving money to the arts, I will be very upset. Someone in the class might think differently, maybe they will think that it is better to stop giving money to the arts and use more money for homeless people. According to the article, people argued about whether to stop giving money to the arts or to keep giving money. Since everybody had their own opinion about this argument, as the result, it was relevance to
Who: government and the artists.
What: The government tries debating whether to spend more money on other projects and less on art.
Where: In the United States of America.
When: 50 years ago ~now
Why: Not enough money in the budget to spend on everything.
How: Arguing whether we should keep the arts money or spend on other things that are more important.
II. SUMMARY: In Los Angeles Time, the article “A milestone for American culture” by Marcus E. Howard explains the argument of giving money for National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The author states “At $150 million each, the budgets for the two endowments represent less than 1% of federal discretionary spending.” …show more content…
Since it is less than 1% of the federal discretionary spending, government shouldn’t take that away from the people who like the arts. Even though some people take the money and make some inappropriate “arts”, there are many great artists that have made great things. If the government takes away the money, then they won’t have as many works of art as we have right now. Great works of art define our National culture. They inspire future artists to continue to use their talents and imagination to create new works of art. As the result, I think the government shouldn’t take away the money that it is giving to the arts.
IV. RELEVANCE: This article is relevant to me because I like the arts. If the government really stops giving money to the arts, I will be very upset. Someone in the class might think differently, maybe they will think that it is better to stop giving money to the arts and use more money for homeless people. According to the article, people argued about whether to stop giving money to the arts or to keep giving money. Since everybody had their own opinion about this argument, as the result, it was relevance to