topic "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
The speaker asserts that using public resource to support the arts is unjustifiable when there is starvation and unemployment in this society. He or she may base the assertion upon the fact that food, clothing and basic skills are the fundamental needs of human beings to survive. The statement is undeniable; in all, a starving man would not have the mood to appreciate a painting in any universe. However, the speaker overlooked some points about this assertion, such as the possibility to eliminate the hungriness and unemployment totally, the impact of art on economy and job market and people's spiritual needs.
To begin with, except being in a utopian society, the hungriness and unemployment can not be eliminated totally. It is common sense, that in a society, there is always someone who cannot get a job. Sometimes this is because of the poor economy, sometimes simply because one does not even want to work; so is the hungriness or the lack of the basic skills needed to survive. I concede that the government must set a lower priority to support the art than to meet the basic needs of people. However, to postpone supporting arts until unemployment and hunger are completely eliminated would definitely be postponed forever. Any informed person would share the opinion that a society is without any unemployment or hunger amounts to a fantasy.
Moreover, some specific kinds of arts can function as some industry to provide job opportunity. If the art subsidy goes into a painting gallery, only a few painters will get the jobs. However, if the money is spent on other arts, such movies or television programs, the job opportunities will be much more. According to a report conducted by a film industry association， it takes two thousand people six months to produce a movie on average, after they investigate three thousand movie from the 1950s and now. If other respects of the film industry chain are taken into consideration, such as the movie theaters and video stores, the number will be tremendous. So, supporting arts which could create jobs is somehow like shooting two birds with one stone when the government wants to meet the basic needs and to fund the arts at same time.
Finally, the speakers advocating that the art should always give way to food, clothing and job skills maybe ignore the fact that not only body and mind but also spirit consists of a human being. The human body and mind is powerful and sometimes the spirit is more powerful. Whenever there is economical crisis in a society, some kinds of art will boom. The golden age of American movie industry is the time when the Great Recession happened. Someone may argue when people having trouble in feeding their families, finding jobs, they will be reluctant to spend money on entertainment but food and clothing. However, he or she may forget people can get courage and hope for life in a movie after a bad day. A factory bring one thousand job to the society pales in importance compared to a movie bring a wind of optimism to a society, especially the economy is bad. The government has every reason to support the art which could give people courage and hope because foods keep us alive but spirits keep us unbeaten.
In all, when facing a dilemma of basic needs and arts, a government should never overlook the importance of arts in economical and spiritual field of a society.
looking for your advice.
The speaker asserts that using public resource to support the arts is unjustifiable when there is starvation and unemployment in this society. He or she may base the assertion upon the fact that food, clothing and basic skills are the fundamental needs of human beings to survive. The statement is undeniable; in all, a starving man would not have the mood to appreciate a painting in any universe. However, the speaker overlooked some points about this assertion, such as the possibility to eliminate the hungriness and unemployment totally, the impact of art on economy and job market and people's spiritual needs.
To begin with, except being in a utopian society, the hungriness and unemployment can not be eliminated totally. It is common sense, that in a society, there is always someone who cannot get a job. Sometimes this is because of the poor economy, sometimes simply because one does not even want to work; so is the hungriness or the lack of the basic skills needed to survive. I concede that the government must set a lower priority to support the art than to meet the basic needs of people. However, to postpone supporting arts until unemployment and hunger are completely eliminated would definitely be postponed forever. Any informed person would share the opinion that a society is without any unemployment or hunger amounts to a fantasy.
Moreover, some specific kinds of arts can function as some industry to provide job opportunity. If the art subsidy goes into a painting gallery, only a few painters will get the jobs. However, if the money is spent on other arts, such movies or television programs, the job opportunities will be much more. According to a report conducted by a film industry association， it takes two thousand people six months to produce a movie on average, after they investigate three thousand movie from the 1950s and now. If other respects of the film industry chain are taken into consideration, such as the movie theaters and video stores, the number will be tremendous. So, supporting arts which could create jobs is somehow like shooting two birds with one stone when the government wants to meet the basic needs and to fund the arts at same time.
Finally, the speakers advocating that the art should always give way to food, clothing and job skills maybe ignore the fact that not only body and mind but also spirit consists of a human being. The human body and mind is powerful and sometimes the spirit is more powerful. Whenever there is economical crisis in a society, some kinds of art will boom. The golden age of American movie industry is the time when the Great Recession happened. Someone may argue when people having trouble in feeding their families, finding jobs, they will be reluctant to spend money on entertainment but food and clothing. However, he or she may forget people can get courage and hope for life in a movie after a bad day. A factory bring one thousand job to the society pales in importance compared to a movie bring a wind of optimism to a society, especially the economy is bad. The government has every reason to support the art which could give people courage and hope because foods keep us alive but spirits keep us unbeaten.
In all, when facing a dilemma of basic needs and arts, a government should never overlook the importance of arts in economical and spiritual field of a society.
looking for your advice.
