SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT GOVERNMENTS SHOULD GIVE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO CREATIVE
ARTISTS SUCH AS PAINTERS AND MUSICIANS. OTHERS BELIEVE THAT CREATIVE ARTISTS SHOULD
BE FUNDED BY ALTERNATIVE SOURCES. DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS AND GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION.
Financial providing from governments to art creators, namely, painters and musicians is considered more necessary than that from alternative sources, while several people have controversial opinions. Personally, I believe that funds for art projects should come from both governments and other financial sources.
The most noticeable merit of governments supporting artists is their key role in the maintenance of art in today's society. It is obvious that the development of technology is currently leading to people's interest in art languishing, causing the disappearance of art in life. In that case, governmental fund for artists is one of the most practical solutions to preserve art culture. Basically, artists such as painters and musicians can restore several worn out but valuable pieces of art or music, or even take those ancient creativeness as inspiration to create new works of art. Without governmental funds, their creations cannot be qualified and fascinating enough. For instance, in Liverpool, there are several new statues and sculptures in the dock areas of the city which represent culture, heritage and history have been redevelop recently, acting as landmarks for tourists who are art-lover. By this way, the country is benefitted by profits from tourists who are attracted by art. Additionally, art culture can be widespread worldwide, consolidating art's position nowadays.
On the other hand, there are controversies about another beneficial way for investments of state budgets, which is on crucial aspects of society such as healthcare and education. Initially, hospital services nowadays are considered extravagant for the poor, leading to individuals not wanting to go to healthcare institution even though its significance. Therefore, governments ought to invest in healthcare funds in order for circumstantial citizens to have enough condition to take proper treatments. Moreover, there are plenty of scholarships for students struggling with poverty that need to be overcome using national money resources. For example, a research made by McKinley university in 2012 shown that 48% of highschoolers dropping out of school due to the lack of financial conditions to continue engaging in education. It is obvious that problems like that are more urgent than artists' funding concerns.
In conclusion, investments of governments in art contribute to art preservation and promote tourism; however, this may take away the money sources supposed to be spent on social aspects such as education and healthcare.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 15168 while several people have controversial opinions.
What opinions are these? There is no such reference in the original statement. You should only be providing information from the source and not adding unverified information to the discussion. This addition actually made the prompt restatement confusing. The removal of this reference would have actually created a more understandable paragraph.
The essay is not using the correct discussion format. All of the opinions come from the personal opinion of the writer alone. The requirement is actually a comparative discussion that would allow the writer to compare and contrast the public opinion from his own. The comparison would have met the actual discussion criteria for this essay and allowed the writer to highlight his opinion in a more appropriate manner, since he would have weakened the public opinion or strengthened it, depending upon which side he actually supported in the writer's opinion statement.
