In today's society a country with the heritage in the arts is considered to be culturally sophisticated and advanced. however due recent economic downfall and recession is many countries this type of lavish spending can an should be questioned. there is has been an ongoing debate for the longest time on how tax payers' money should be better utilized by governments. an important point to consider is the fact that art lovers are in the minority and thus spending money on art and sculptures would only benefit a few. when trying to utilize tax payers money governments should put great through in to how to utilize the funds is a manner which will benefit the majority.
Firstly I believe governments should not spend a lot a money on the arts are there are more publicly beneficial services and facilities those same monies can be utilized for. Even in richer countries there are villages that are in dire need of the basic necessities and could use an uplifting of the quality of their lives. by developing programs and helping the poorer people of a nation, the governments will be able to see a drastic reduction in the crime rates. Consequently there have been research carried out in the past which has put forward the correlation between marginal neighborhoods and crime rates which is positively skewed. With governments utilizing funds for the betterment of there neighborhoods, they are bound to see a favorable outcome In the future.
Secondly art lovers are in the minority. And when compared with sports lovers their significance is microscopic. You will always see more people at a football at a stadium than looking at arts and sculptures at an art museum. Commissioning or purchasing art would be an insult to tax payers who suffer severely from unemployment. That being said governments should invest in recreational facilities for the public, but the amount invested should be reduced.
In conclusion I believe governments should not invest too much money on art and should focus on providing services and recreational facilities which will benefit the majority.
Firstly I believe governments should not spend a lot a money on the arts are there are more publicly beneficial services and facilities those same monies can be utilized for. Even in richer countries there are villages that are in dire need of the basic necessities and could use an uplifting of the quality of their lives. by developing programs and helping the poorer people of a nation, the governments will be able to see a drastic reduction in the crime rates. Consequently there have been research carried out in the past which has put forward the correlation between marginal neighborhoods and crime rates which is positively skewed. With governments utilizing funds for the betterment of there neighborhoods, they are bound to see a favorable outcome In the future.
Secondly art lovers are in the minority. And when compared with sports lovers their significance is microscopic. You will always see more people at a football at a stadium than looking at arts and sculptures at an art museum. Commissioning or purchasing art would be an insult to tax payers who suffer severely from unemployment. That being said governments should invest in recreational facilities for the public, but the amount invested should be reduced.
In conclusion I believe governments should not invest too much money on art and should focus on providing services and recreational facilities which will benefit the majority.
