Some people think that the government is wasting money on the arts and this money could be better spent elsewhere. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Question

People have diverse options about the state’s expenditure on art. Some people argued that instead of squandering money on art organizations, governments should allocate taxpayers’ money for the improvement of other basic necessities. While this thinking is valid to a certain extent, I believe that state funding of art is worth every penny.

 

There are some justifications given by people who oppose diverting funds towards arts. First of all, art is not considered to be essential, compared to other critical aspects of the sustainability of human’s life. For example, state budgets should be spent on public services such as education, healthcare and infrastructure, which are vital for a country to function properly. In addition to this, it is argued that some art projects are self-sufficient in finance, for they can earn money from ticket sales and private investors. As a result, it is superfluous for government to allocate budget for the arts.

 

Despite the aforementioned drawbacks, I would content that art should be given the top priority. On the individual level, art has been regarded as the valuable supplement for humans’ soul. For instance, art products enhance our spiritual lives by reducing psychological stress and bringing us great faith in promising future. On the social level, investment in arts is such a strategic way to boost the economy. Traditional arts, take local handicraft as an example, make a profound impression on international tourists, which facilitates the development of tourism industry. Therefore, it is indisputable that arts generate revenue in return.

 

In conclusion, it is clear to me that art expenditure is advantageous for both individuals and society, so funding arts by the government is not a wastage of money.

Enable Ginger

Cannot connect to Ginger Check your internet connection
or reload the browserDisable in this text fieldRephraseRephrase current sentenceLog in to edit with Ginger×

Answer 1

People have diverse options --> opinions about the state’s expenditure on art --> which is necessary. Some people argued that instead of squandering money on art organizations, governments should allocate taxpayers’ money for the improvement of other basic necessities à--> more essential and urgent things. While this thinking is valid to a certain extent, I believe that state funding of art is worth every penny.

There are some justifications given by people who oppose diverting funds towards arts. First of all,(chỉ dùng trong speaking) -->  Firstly, art is not considered to be essential, compared to other critical aspects of the sustainability of human’s life. For example, state budgets should be spent on public services such as education, healthcare and infrastructure, which are vital for a country to function properly. In addition to this, it is argued that some art projects are self-sufficient in finance, for they can earn money from ticket sales and private investors. As a result, it is superfluous for government to allocate budget for the arts.

Despite the aforementioned drawbacks, I still believe that benefits of art outweigh the amount of money invested on it, so I would content that art should be given the top priority. On the individual level, art has been regarded as the valuable supplement for humans’ soul. For instance, art products enhance our spiritual lives by reducing psychological stress and bringing us great faith in promising future. On the social level, investment in arts is such a strategic way to boost the economy. Traditional arts, take local handicraft as an example, make a profound impression on international tourists, which facilitates the development of tourism industry. Therefore, it is indisputable that arts generate revenue in return.

In conclusion, it is clear to me that art expenditure is advantageous for both individuals and society, so funding arts by the government is not a wastage of money.