Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all kinds of artists including painters, musicians, poets. However, other people think that is a waste of money for providing this assistance.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Whether artists should receive government support or not has become a topic of debate. Some people argue that the government should assist them financially, while others contend that this would be a misuse of public funds. I personally agree that the government should support artists despite the opposition to this initiative.
Critics of supporting artists state that there are many pressing issues that should be addressed. According to them, art serves the interests of a niche audience—wealthy and affluent people—rather than benefiting society as a whole. Thus, instead of satisfying the needs of a minority, the government should allocate funds to resolving more critical issues, such as unemployment, poverty, and poor infrastructure. Such challenges compromise the quality of life for people, which is why they require more attention compared to art, which is considered a luxury rather than a necessity. Allocating the budget to basic yet essential needs—such as creating better infrastructure like schools, hospitals, and public transport—can satisfy the requirements of the general public and justify the subsidies allocated.
Nevertheless, I do not think that the government should overlook the importance of art. For one thing, artists serve as custodians of cultural identity. Through their creative works, artists reflect the cultural heritage of a country, promoting it not only to locals but also to foreigners. This helps preserve traditions and customs through their work by showcasing them in global art exhibitions, art galleries, and performances. Korean pop culture is a pertinent example, as it promotes Korean culture to the masses through songs and movies that captivate millions of people, while also disseminating it worldwide.
Furthermore, while some might think that channeling investments into the arts can redirect focus from fundamental issues, I believe that art can actually generate substantial income that drives the economy. The Hollywood film industry illustrates this well. Films produced in these studios generate billions of dollars, create job opportunities for millions, and enhance the USA’s global image. Such global stature has also boosted the tourism industry, attracting millions of people to visit the USA to explore states where their favorite movies were filmed. In a world where globalization is occurring rapidly, it is pivotal to preserve and disseminate a country’s culture and traditions to prevent them from disappearing.
In conclusion, although some argue that funding art is a misuse of taxpayer money when there are more urgent issues, I think allocating funds to preserve the arts is crucial since it not only helps promote cultural identity but also generates revenue, creating economic opportunities that help tackle social issues. Therefore, I argue that governments should support the arts while also not overlooking existing issues.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Whether artists should receive government support or not has become a topic of debate. Some people argue that the government should assist them financially, while others contend that this would be a misuse of public funds. I personally agree that the government should support artists despite the opposition to this initiative.
Critics of supporting artists state that there are many pressing issues that should be addressed. According to them, art serves the interests of a niche audience—wealthy and affluent people—rather than benefiting society as a whole. Thus, instead of satisfying the needs of a minority, the government should allocate funds to resolving more critical issues, such as unemployment, poverty, and poor infrastructure. Such challenges compromise the quality of life for people, which is why they require more attention compared to art, which is considered a luxury rather than a necessity. Allocating the budget to basic yet essential needs—such as creating better infrastructure like schools, hospitals, and public transport—can satisfy the requirements of the general public and justify the subsidies allocated.
Nevertheless, I do not think that the government should overlook the importance of art. For one thing, artists serve as custodians of cultural identity. Through their creative works, artists reflect the cultural heritage of a country, promoting it not only to locals but also to foreigners. This helps preserve traditions and customs through their work by showcasing them in global art exhibitions, art galleries, and performances. Korean pop culture is a pertinent example, as it promotes Korean culture to the masses through songs and movies that captivate millions of people, while also disseminating it worldwide.
Furthermore, while some might think that channeling investments into the arts can redirect focus from fundamental issues, I believe that art can actually generate substantial income that drives the economy. The Hollywood film industry illustrates this well. Films produced in these studios generate billions of dollars, create job opportunities for millions, and enhance the USA’s global image. Such global stature has also boosted the tourism industry, attracting millions of people to visit the USA to explore states where their favorite movies were filmed. In a world where globalization is occurring rapidly, it is pivotal to preserve and disseminate a country’s culture and traditions to prevent them from disappearing.
In conclusion, although some argue that funding art is a misuse of taxpayer money when there are more urgent issues, I think allocating funds to preserve the arts is crucial since it not only helps promote cultural identity but also generates revenue, creating economic opportunities that help tackle social issues. Therefore, I argue that governments should support the arts while also not overlooking existing issues.