Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.[Specific Task Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.]

Generally speaking, my point of view aligns with the second position rather than the first. I think government funding of the arts does more harm than benefit to the integrity of the arts.
Amid the integrity of the arts there are values and criteria with which artists try to make their own products. And the government funding usually comes along with some policy, or at least some guideline for the artists' work, no matter implicit or explicit. Such guideline will in no doubt compromise the artists' own standard. The artists who accept the government money may get scrupled once they have anticipated that their products will go against the government. Then comes their self-censorship, which will, of course, threaten the integrity of the arts. In some countries of autocracy, the situation for arts could be even worse. For example, in former USSR, all artists were funded by government, because they can hardly survive the harsh political and economical environment without such funding. That means they became slaves of government. How could slaves, rather than independent artists, make the arts really flourish? Well, the proponents of government funding may emphasize its help for the survival of arts, especially for those genres with few audience. I admit that government money may help to saveT such "endangered arts", but for the rest of arts, especially those genres can be self-sustained, government funding will less unnecessary. Accordingly, I suggest artists stay away from government funding, unless they can not find revenue themselves to earn their bread.
Besides, I'm not sure if government funding, as its proponents have anticipated, could be able to make arts "available to all" and flourish. I doubt that government will fund some art genres if they don't conform the government's preference. Thus, some genres and styles may not survive and get lost if artists are dependent on government funding. For example, during the Cultural Revolution, the Beijing Opera, one of most flourish and popular genres in China, experienced its crush. There were only eight "paragon products" survive because of governmental sanction, others were all forbidden. I won't call it "thrive" even all of the eight paragon are really good. Neither I'll believe people will be satisfied by only those "chosen eight" without a variety of products for them to choose. What's worse, even those eight operas were not so available during that era. Ordinary people could hardly get chance to sit in a theater because the price and scarcity of tickets. It is nearly unthinkable for us today. That's to say, the government funding, if become popular, could do great harm to the integrity of arts. 
As a result, my point of view is much closer to the second group. Generally I oppose the government funding to arts due to the possible threat of it on arts' integrity. The only exception should be those genres which cannot survive in market; the government funding could help these genres to survive. And the rest, the main body of arts, are suggested to be self-fulfilled if they can. The government funding can hardly be helpful for the arts' popularity or flourish.