Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all kinds of artists including painters, musicians and poets, etc. However, other people think that is a waste of money. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
[shc_shortcode class=”shc_mybox”]Many people’s lives are richer because of art – music, paintings, calligraphy, pictures,
sculpture, poems and dance. There are some who claim that it is important to support
the artists, and others who are opposed to government funding. In the following
paragraphs, I shall discuss both sides of the argument and finally give my opinion.
There are many reasons why government should fund artists. The contributions of
artists to the society are very essential. Art can bring out people’s creativity, views and
personalities. For example, we learn about our history, traditions and culture through
movies, songs and paintings made by artists. Artists are the media of diffusing
tradition. All kinds of tradition are the basis of a country without which the country
can’t be civilised. So artists are the ambassadors of culture and play a vital role in
elevating the level of civilization of the country. It is a major form of cultural
abundance.
Another important aspect of this is that art is an ancient means of communication.
Our language is a result of people’s need to communicate. Art is what differentiates us
from animals. Art is our soul and it is a source of courage. Artists also entertain us.
Finally, government should fund artists because earning a livelihood from art is
difficult especially in the budding stages.
Opponents of government funding on artists say that money spent on the arts could
have been used for considerably more vital purposes. They have strong reasons as a
nation’s health and wellbeing should be paramount. The idea that elderly people are
forced to wait for essential operations whilst the money required to increase available
medical provision is spent on opera and ballet is plainly immoral. There are also more
deserving social causes for the money that should be considered before the arts.
Homelessness, unemployment, illiteracy – all of these deserve to be addressed before
money is spent on what is essentially little more than entertainment.
To summarise, I would like to say that as both sides have strong arguments, it depends
on the condition of the country. In developed countries where even the poorest of the
poor have all the basic amenities of life, government should spend on art and artists
but in countries where people are dying of starvation and diseases, other matters
should be given priority.
Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all
Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all
Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all
[/shc_shortcode]
