Many countries have “national theatres” that are handsomely subsidized by the federal government. While the United States has the National Endowment for the Arts, which provides funding to arts organizations around the country, there is no theatre designated as a “national theatre.” Do you think there ought to be? Why do you think there isn’t? Why might having such a theatre be a good thing? Why a bad thing?

Answer and Explanation:

It would be important for countries, not just the US, to have a national theater, as it would value local artistic production, allowing actors of this type of art to have a more structured production and allowing actors, directors and all theater professionals to have a greater stability to develop this kind of art. However, countries create a national theater because this type of art does not have an audience as large as the audience for other types of artistic production, such as cinema, for example. This lack of popularity is the main negative point in producing a national theater, as this would demand an expense, with no certainty of economic return. However, the positive point is that the creation of a national theater would help popularize the theater and would make this type of art less elite, as it would be more accessible to the general public.

artists followed a set of rules to achieve ideal proportion.