Recently, UK government spends substantial amount of budget to support and subsidize museums, galleries, and visual and performing arts. Some people see such expenditures as extravagant and they prefer the authority to spend more on other crucial sectors like health care and education. They suggest that payee should be the one who fancy these cultural attractions. In this essay, I discuss my opinion on who should be financially responsible for the future of arts, museums and galleries and why.
First of all, it is a conventional wisdom that public money should be well spent to benefit a society. To achieve such goal, the budget is allocated across different sectors and priority is given to important areas. For example, significant proportion of budget is spent on health care, education, scientific researches and public transportation. This is welcomed by most citizens as these things obviously have important implication on each person. On the other hand, arts and culture of a society may be seen as minority interests that belong to a particular class or small percentage of a community. Those who held such a view would express that payee should be these people who pursuit artistic attractions. Although it seems logical to spend less on culture of a nation or a region, there are other important aspects of arts and culture that could be beneficial to a community.
There are many reasons why culture is important to a particular nation or region. Firstly, pieces of music, orchestra and painting are cultural heritages and legacy from one generation to another. For example, the National Gallery in London houses the historical collection of western European painting, while encouraging access to the pictures. Great pieces like those of Leonardo Da Vinci would not be reachable to ordinary citizens without a government support for these galleries. I feel that the places could not be sustained by contribution of individual enjoying them alone. Furthermore, family and children could visit to the museums to relax their mind, stimulate creativity of the young, study history and get aspiration. This means these centres also have educational value that can not be easily learned in classrooms. Finally, these places and arts catch the tourists’ eye which promotes cultural tourism and eventual national income.Therefore,investment in them is not futile.
All in all, I think arts, museums and galleries also have public interests and value too. Thus these cultural attractions should also be supported and subsidized by a government along with other critical area like health care and education.
(09 09 09)
Similar topic from different perspective
Some say that artists (musicians, writers, painters) should be supported by the government. Others think it would be waste of money.
Discuss both arguments and give your opinion. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
A Sample Answer:
http://www.ieltsstudy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34:art-1&catid=2:task-2&Itemid=6
First of all, it is a conventional wisdom that public money should be well spent to benefit a society. To achieve such goal, the budget is allocated across different sectors and priority is given to important areas. For example, significant proportion of budget is spent on health care, education, scientific researches and public transportation. This is welcomed by most citizens as these things obviously have important implication on each person. On the other hand, arts and culture of a society may be seen as minority interests that belong to a particular class or small percentage of a community. Those who held such a view would express that payee should be these people who pursuit artistic attractions. Although it seems logical to spend less on culture of a nation or a region, there are other important aspects of arts and culture that could be beneficial to a community.
There are many reasons why culture is important to a particular nation or region. Firstly, pieces of music, orchestra and painting are cultural heritages and legacy from one generation to another. For example, the National Gallery in London houses the historical collection of western European painting, while encouraging access to the pictures. Great pieces like those of Leonardo Da Vinci would not be reachable to ordinary citizens without a government support for these galleries. I feel that the places could not be sustained by contribution of individual enjoying them alone. Furthermore, family and children could visit to the museums to relax their mind, stimulate creativity of the young, study history and get aspiration. This means these centres also have educational value that can not be easily learned in classrooms. Finally, these places and arts catch the tourists’ eye which promotes cultural tourism and eventual national income.Therefore,investment in them is not futile.
All in all, I think arts, museums and galleries also have public interests and value too. Thus these cultural attractions should also be supported and subsidized by a government along with other critical area like health care and education.
(09 09 09)
Similar topic from different perspective
Some say that artists (musicians, writers, painters) should be supported by the government. Others think it would be waste of money.
Discuss both arguments and give your opinion. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
A Sample Answer:
http://www.ieltsstudy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34:art-1&catid=2:task-2&Itemid=6
No comments:
Post a Comment