Some people believe that governments should fund and promote artistic and cultural activities for their citizens. Others, however, think that these activities should be left to private individuals and institutions.
Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
The government plays an important role in developing a country. That is why there is an argument as to how the government should invest more in either artistic or cultural activities. While other people believe that private individuals and institutions should take these activities, I am personally convinced that government should maintain these activities properly as a country's asset.
Art is a product of human expression and for this case government should give the amount of finance to promote and cultural activities because these activities are countries symbol so as to prominent for them to preserve properly these activities. To exemplify, traditional dance such as "Reog Ponorogo" in Indonesia is the famous traditional activity in Indonesia. By this truly fact, all countries around the world recognize well that this country is original from Indonesia. Automatically, this is a significant symbol which is owned by Indonesia. Consequently, the development of culture and artistic is in government's hand.
On the other hand, some artistic and cultural activities should be taken to private in individuals and institution because in this reality governments do not pay attention more through these activities. However, when these activities were handled by private institution, they will preserve them as perfect as possible because they tend to utilize them as their asset to obtain much profit. As a result, this artistic and cultural activity appears lovingly when it comes to private institution's hand.
On the whole, both artistic and cultural activities were prominent aspects for the development of country. While private institution enables to maintain it perfectly, I strongly argue that private institution will handle these fully, and doubtfully, all citizens cannot own these activities as their countries' pride.
Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
The government plays an important role in developing a country. That is why there is an argument as to how the government should invest more in either artistic or cultural activities. While other people believe that private individuals and institutions should take these activities, I am personally convinced that government should maintain these activities properly as a country's asset.
Art is a product of human expression and for this case government should give the amount of finance to promote and cultural activities because these activities are countries symbol so as to prominent for them to preserve properly these activities. To exemplify, traditional dance such as "Reog Ponorogo" in Indonesia is the famous traditional activity in Indonesia. By this truly fact, all countries around the world recognize well that this country is original from Indonesia. Automatically, this is a significant symbol which is owned by Indonesia. Consequently, the development of culture and artistic is in government's hand.
On the other hand, some artistic and cultural activities should be taken to private in individuals and institution because in this reality governments do not pay attention more through these activities. However, when these activities were handled by private institution, they will preserve them as perfect as possible because they tend to utilize them as their asset to obtain much profit. As a result, this artistic and cultural activity appears lovingly when it comes to private institution's hand.
On the whole, both artistic and cultural activities were prominent aspects for the development of country. While private institution enables to maintain it perfectly, I strongly argue that private institution will handle these fully, and doubtfully, all citizens cannot own these activities as their countries' pride.