Investment in the Art

Investment on art

Title

Many countries spend a lot of money in art. Some people think investment in art is necessary, but others say money is better spent on public services and facilities. Discuss both these views and give your own opinions.

Practice

Sponsorship from the government in the arts is a controversial issue, especially under limited budget conditions. Some are of the opinion that states should invest more in the arts, while others hold the opposite viewpoint. While there are valid arguements on both side, I believe a balanced approach is essential.

The main reasons for supporting the more revenue should be expended on arts are focused on two points. Firstly, this policy can protect traditional culture. It is important to realize that the arts are a valid part of legenct of culture, so protecting the loss of arts has important implications to culture diversity by sponsoring people to learn about them. Second, it presents the respect for the variety of humanlity. It is inevitable that different people have different pursuit. In a conprehensive society, everyone has their own right to achieve their goals, so the government should support all fields not just some certain sides.

Howerer, it is also reasonable that some people stand on the other side. First and foremost, not all the countries have enough revenue to spend on arts and protecting culture, so they have no choice but to prioritize some basic needs, such as public healthcare, infrustructure, and environmental management.

Moreover, by comparing to these public welfare, the arts are luxury items for the majority of people. Therefore, it is ponitless to invest more public funds on this purpose. For example, playing piano is not general in common life. And yet, the price of a piano is not affordable. If the government wast much on it, the revenue may be insuffcient on other filelds.

In sight of thses facts, although the government should pay attention on social inclusion and spreading of culture, it is also vitally important to focus on public service. Hence, I believe a balanced approach is essential.

Correctness

Sponsorship from the government in the arts is a controversial issue, especially under limited budget conditions. Some are of the opinion that states should invest more in the arts, while others hold the opposite viewpoint. While there are valid arguments on both sides, I believe a balanced approach is essential.

The main reasons for supporting increased government spending on the arts are twofold. Firstly, this policy can help preserve traditional culture. The arts are a vital part of cultural heritage, and protecting them is important for maintaining cultural diversity. By sponsoring the arts, people can learn about and appreciate various cultural forms. Secondly, investing in the arts demonstrates respect for human diversity. People have different interests and pursuits, and a comprehensive society should support all fields, not just certain ones.

However, it is also reasonable for some to oppose increased spending on the arts. First and foremost, not all countries have sufficient revenue to invest in the arts and cultural preservation. As a result, they may need to prioritize basic needs such as public healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental management.

Moreover, compared to public welfare, the arts are often seen as a luxury for most people. Investing more public funds in the arts might be viewed as unnecessary when there are pressing needs in other areas. For example, playing the piano is not a common activity for everyone, and the cost of a piano can be prohibitive. If the government spends too much on the arts, there may be insufficient funds for other essential services.

In light of these facts, although the government should support social inclusion and the spread of culture, it is also crucial to focus on public services. Therefore, I believe a balanced approach is essential.