Questions : 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 improving health and education. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Answer:
With the improvement of life standard in recent decades, an increasing amount of funds have been invested in the deveplopment of art. However, many citizens call for the priority of the spending on education and health service over the art projects for the sake of their own welfare.
Those who go for more development of art hold the view that financing artistic projects can bring significant benefits both individually and socially. From an individual standview, more estabilishment artistic places such as museums gallery and opera have provided people especially those working undr high pressure in this high-speed modern society more convenient and available ways to relax spiritually as well as making up for their monotorous life. Further, from a social stage, more creation and flow of artistic works tend to facilitate cultural understanding between countries regardless of language gap.
Obviously, those who advocate the artistic appreciation more likely rest on the more affluent group of people rather the poor who have to worry about the allocation of their low income which constiutes considerable proportion of health and education.expenditures.This is also the reason for some socialists to appeal to the government to concern more about the public welfare. From a business point, imagine how many residents would go to the local gallery and opera which are built in the area of slums before their basic needs are still a problem. Therefore, the question of where the investment should be given the priority depends on the economic situation in a region. Moreover, the source of the investment is also a pivotal consideration. Clearly private enterprises are running relying on the earned profit. Then some artistic projections that are not free to public , taking cinema for example, are definitely better choices than health centres and schools.
Accordingly, welfare service and artistic projections should both be subsidized due to their individual and social benefits. Which should be valued more, though, mainly lie on the economic situaions in the area invested as well as the source of funds.
Answer:
With the improvement of life standard in recent decades, an increasing amount of funds have been invested in the deveplopment of art. However, many citizens call for the priority of the spending on education and health service over the art projects for the sake of their own welfare.
Those who go for more development of art hold the view that financing artistic projects can bring significant benefits both individually and socially. From an individual standview, more estabilishment artistic places such as museums gallery and opera have provided people especially those working undr high pressure in this high-speed modern society more convenient and available ways to relax spiritually as well as making up for their monotorous life. Further, from a social stage, more creation and flow of artistic works tend to facilitate cultural understanding between countries regardless of language gap.
Obviously, those who advocate the artistic appreciation more likely rest on the more affluent group of people rather the poor who have to worry about the allocation of their low income which constiutes considerable proportion of health and education.expenditures.This is also the reason for some socialists to appeal to the government to concern more about the public welfare. From a business point, imagine how many residents would go to the local gallery and opera which are built in the area of slums before their basic needs are still a problem. Therefore, the question of where the investment should be given the priority depends on the economic situation in a region. Moreover, the source of the investment is also a pivotal consideration. Clearly private enterprises are running relying on the earned profit. Then some artistic projections that are not free to public , taking cinema for example, are definitely better choices than health centres and schools.
Accordingly, welfare service and artistic projections should both be subsidized due to their individual and social benefits. Which should be valued more, though, mainly lie on the economic situaions in the area invested as well as the source of funds.
