MANY COUNTIES 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 VIEWS AND GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION.
Currently, it has been obvious / evident that increasing governments tend to invest art. However, whether funding for the arts or in essential services and infrastructures roused a heated discussion in the public.
From someone's view, it is believed that increasing investment of art will be benefit to improve citizens' level of culture. Specifically, how to keep the cost is an artist the important one of most of consideration. To earn profits, galleries and museums have to increase tickets' price. It will make some people are not willing to visit exhibitions. If the government give some funds, more people will get chances to entrance galleries.
However, there is another argument that limited(adj.) funds ought to use in other aspect, like free education. As is well known, in the some poor regions, because of lack of money, a large number of families are disable to offer education for their children, but everyone child should have right to attain education, which require that the government offer free education chances in children's primary and high level.
As well as free education, improving facilities is also another requirement. To illustrate, Good infrastructures can ensure criticizes' health and life. For instance, cleaner water systems give a healthy environment for people, which make them reduce diseases. Besides, well transport systems make people have more convenient life, and no longer facing traffic jam. Compared with arts, it is more useful for most of citizens.
Personally, investment on public service and facilities rather than on art makes sense, due to free education and fitness facilities. As for the so-called improving people's level of culture, higher education also can have the same affect.
some governments tend to invest in art
Currently, it has been obvious / evident that increasing governments tend to invest art. However, whether funding for the arts or in essential services and infrastructures roused a heated discussion in the public.
From someone's view, it is believed that increasing investment of art will be benefit to improve citizens' level of culture. Specifically, how to keep the cost is an artist the important one of most of consideration. To earn profits, galleries and museums have to increase tickets' price. It will make some people are not willing to visit exhibitions. If the government give some funds, more people will get chances to entrance galleries.
However, there is another argument that limited(adj.) funds ought to use in other aspect, like free education. As is well known, in the some poor regions, because of lack of money, a large number of families are disable to offer education for their children, but everyone child should have right to attain education, which require that the government offer free education chances in children's primary and high level.
As well as free education, improving facilities is also another requirement. To illustrate, Good infrastructures can ensure criticizes' health and life. For instance, cleaner water systems give a healthy environment for people, which make them reduce diseases. Besides, well transport systems make people have more convenient life, and no longer facing traffic jam. Compared with arts, it is more useful for most of citizens.
Personally, investment on public service and facilities rather than on art makes sense, due to free education and fitness facilities. As for the so-called improving people's level of culture, higher education also can have the same affect.
