Some people believe that arts like music and painting should not be funded by the government . others believe that these are important for a society and need government funding.
Do you agree or disagree?
There is currently a contentious argument over whether the fine arts like music and painting be bestowed with the funds from the government authorities. I somewhat agree with the opinion that arts demand resources because of their effects on intercontinental cultural exchange as well as health; however there are many sensitive issues such as basic needs and education which require a large chunk of that.
The main reason why I believe arts should be funded is owing to the fact that it allows cross-cultural communication which in turn boosts up the economy. Indeed there has been an influx of enthusiasts from all over the world who wish to learn and spread Indian culture. For instance, icons in Carnatic music and painting namely M S Subbalaxmi, Shri Ravishankar and M F Hussain have always been sought after. Undoubtedly, this leads to a positive surge in the country's economy.
In addition, effects of music and painting on health have been enormous. For example, music therapy has been widely practised in the field of medicine as a modality of cure and palliation. Moreover, painting plays a major role in the elation of mood in psychiatric health. Hence a flow of funds should be mandated from the ruling body.
However, crucial issues such as basic needs and education be dealt with by diverting more into these sections. Even in the current world, many are still deprived of these minimum requirements. For instance, it was quoted recently that more than sixty percent surviving below the poverty line. This is an irony that people place arts over the necessities.
In conclusion, I partly agree that the money should be spent on arts like music and painting. This is because of the positive effects on culture and health. However, I admit that the issues like basic needs and education be better addressed. Given this situation, it seems that the funds from the government be spent wisely catering to everyone's needs.
Do you agree or disagree?
There is currently a contentious argument over whether the fine arts like music and painting be bestowed with the funds from the government authorities. I somewhat agree with the opinion that arts demand resources because of their effects on intercontinental cultural exchange as well as health; however there are many sensitive issues such as basic needs and education which require a large chunk of that.
The main reason why I believe arts should be funded is owing to the fact that it allows cross-cultural communication which in turn boosts up the economy. Indeed there has been an influx of enthusiasts from all over the world who wish to learn and spread Indian culture. For instance, icons in Carnatic music and painting namely M S Subbalaxmi, Shri Ravishankar and M F Hussain have always been sought after. Undoubtedly, this leads to a positive surge in the country's economy.
In addition, effects of music and painting on health have been enormous. For example, music therapy has been widely practised in the field of medicine as a modality of cure and palliation. Moreover, painting plays a major role in the elation of mood in psychiatric health. Hence a flow of funds should be mandated from the ruling body.
However, crucial issues such as basic needs and education be dealt with by diverting more into these sections. Even in the current world, many are still deprived of these minimum requirements. For instance, it was quoted recently that more than sixty percent surviving below the poverty line. This is an irony that people place arts over the necessities.
In conclusion, I partly agree that the money should be spent on arts like music and painting. This is because of the positive effects on culture and health. However, I admit that the issues like basic needs and education be better addressed. Given this situation, it seems that the funds from the government be spent wisely catering to everyone's needs.
