Đề thi IELTS - 29/08/2015 - Some people think that the governments should give financial support to artists, musicians and poets...

Question

TOPIC task 2 của tuần này update ngày 29/08/2015 :

Some people think that the governments should give financial support to artists, musicians and poets. Others think that it is a waste of money. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

-------------------------------------------------

Hướng dẫn sử dụng trong top Chữa đề IELTS hàng tuần:

Step 1: Click  ở cuối mỗi bài viết được post lên trong top để nhận xét bài viết của các mem khác (ưu tiên những bài chưa có góp ý nào nhé ^^ )

Step 2: Click nút  ở cuối topic này để post bài bạn viết lên. 

Step 2.5: Và đừng quên góp ý cho những bài viết trong mục "Bài chưa có góp ý" để kiếm thêm point nhé :)

Luật của Top:

- Mỗi bạn sẽ post bài viết của mình lên dưới dạng góp ý (+2 point cho mỗi bài viết).

- Các bạn sẽ cùng viết, vote và nhận xét bài lẫn nhau trong Topic này.

- Bài viết nào được vote nhiều nhất sẽ được chọn làm bài viết hay nhất (+4 point).

 

Hạn chót nộp bài sẽ là 12h trưa sáng thứ 7 tuần này nhé :)

Have fun !

----------------------------

Bài mẫu Band 8.0 cho đề Task 2 tuần này: 29/08/2015 đến từ IPP IELTS

Some people think that governments should give financial support to artists, musicians and poets. Others think that it is a waste of money.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 

Governmental finance as a form of support for artists has evolved has a major topic of concern in modern society. While some believe there are real benefits of this policy, I would contend that that this is a waste of financial resources.

There is a common belief that artists should be provided with financial support by the state. People may argue that some artists receive less money compared with they devote to society. For example, Nguyen Van Ty, a nationally-famous musician in Vietnam, lived a deprived life and died in poverty. Another significant reason for this belief is that once governmental budget on supporting artists is allowed, thousands of young artists would be stimulated to contribute more to the development of art. A clear example of this is that the 2005 governmental allowance for young photographers in Singapore acted as a precursor to an era that Singaporean photography took a giant leap to become a leading industry in the whole country’s entertainment industry.

However, I am convinced that this type of governmental spending is worthless. The primary reason is that in today’s economy, artists can take care of themselves financially without the help of the government. With the aid of the Internet and digital technology, artists can now reach millions of people by publishing their artwork online. With this larger target audience, artists may easily find buyers of their artwork and therefore do not need financial assistance. Another significant reason why this is a waste of money is that there are better ways for the government to spend their budget for art. Investment in art education, for example, not only raises the public awareness of art but also makes people treasure art more. The result of this practice is that the public would willingly pay more for artwork, which is a more sustainable way to promote art, making providing artists with financial assistance a less cost effective and thus a money-wasting policy.

To conclude, although the idea of giving artists financial assistance is worthwhile to some, I firmly believe that there are far more compelling reasons why this policy is a waste of money in today’s society.

Answer 1

It is argued that government should pay an adequate amount of money for artists, musicians and poets, while some people believe that this is an unwise financial investment. In my opinion, though there are some reasons for not giving financial support to the artist, I believe that it is necessary to support them financially.

On the one hand, there are several points explaining why government's financial support fort artists, musicians and poets is a completely waste of money. Firstly, there are many important social problems that need to be solved. For example, many places damaged by environmental pollution should be repaired; also, the poor and poor regions, especially those suffered from natural disasters have a great need of being provided with food, living places and reconstructed by the government. Secondly, the artist can make money by selling their artistic products. Many famous paintings of well-known artists can range in price from thousands to millions of dollars.

On the other hand, I believe that government should support artistic people financially for some noticeable reasons. Artistic works have a considerable contribution to the national culture. By producing musics, writing poems or drawing paintings, these works are developing the diversity of the national entertainment industry. People who work in the field of arts can become internationally famous, which is advertising their local culture to the world. Also, the arts sector is creating many job opportunities for people who have artistic talents and making a great effort to serve people's needs of entertainment. For example, musics can release our stresses from work and relax our minds, while poems can nourish our souls.

In conclusion, there are some issues that need to be financially supported, I do believe that government should pay a limited amount of money to the artist for their invaluable contribution to the national culture.

Comments

It is argued that government should pay an adequate amount of money for artists, musicians and poets, while some people believe that this is an unwise financial investment. In my opinion, though there are some reasons for not giving financial support (should use FINANCIAL AID to avoid repetition) to the artist, I believe that it is necessary to support them financially.

On the one hand, there are several points explaining why government's financial support for artists, musicians and poets is a completely waste of money. Firstly, there are many important social problems that need to be solved. For example, many places damaged by environmental pollution should be repaired; also, the poor and poor regions, especially those suffered from natural disasters have a great need of being provided with food, living places (ACCOMMODATION?) and reconstructed by the government. Secondly, the artist can make money by selling their artistic products. Many famous paintings of well-known artists can range in price from thousands to millions of dollars.

On the other hand, I believe that government should support artistic people financially / PROVIDE ARTISTIC PEOPLE WITH FINANCIAL (ECONOMIC) AID? for some noticeable reasons. Artistic works / ARTWORKS have a considerable contribution to the national culture. By producing MUSIC, writing poems or drawing paintings, these works are developing (ENHANCING?) the diversity of the national entertainment industry. People who work in the field of arts can become internationally famous, which is advertising (WOULD PROMOTE?) their local culture to the world. Also, the arts sector is creating many job opportunities for people who have artistic talents and making a great effort to serve people's needs of entertainment. For example, MUSIC can release (REMOVE/RELIEVE?) our stresses from work and relax our minds / HELP US UNWIND?, while poems can nourish our souls. / CULTIVATE OUR MIND?

....

---

Your essay is quite well-written: good coherence and cohesion, wide range of vocabulary though still needs some improvements. Keep up the good work !

 

 

 

---

Thanks for your valuable comment. I'm still working on my essays. I hope you can help me more on correcting my next essay. Anyway, thanks.

---

You're welcome :D I'm also an IELTS learner like you and I find your essay quite interesting :)

Answer 2

The government revenue is raised essentially from tax. Therefore, citizens are concerned about how the government allocates its budget. Some people firmly contend that the government financial support for musicians, artists and poets is necessary while others refuse for sake of its waste. Both sides have valid rationales but I personally believe that the first view makes more sense and my arguments are presented below.
Obviously, musicians, artists and poets are those creating spiritual value for society which is much appreciated but their contribution isn't correspondingly paid. For example, in Vietnam, most musicians or artists can't support themselves from their interest
Another point worth is that music, art and poetry symbolize a country's culture so the government needs to show their role in maintaining characteristics in culture through subsidising potential musicians, artists and poets to develop their talent and passion.
Nevertheless, there is conflict between the limited government budget and the unlimited social demands,which put priority on other fields such as education,medical,economics..In most developing countries,the government budget isn't enough to support for these fields  .In addition,people have lowered the value of music, art or poetry so they aren't willing to spend their money on its creators.For instance, most people watch music or art program on television instead of being visual in a concert or art exhibition with one-milion tickets .
All in all, while to a certain extent that musicians,artists and poets are deserved to get the government 's support to devote to their career,ultimately develop country's culture.

Comments

At first glance, I thought that the introduction is too long. I recommend it should be 2 sentences: General statement and opinion. 

Paragraph 1: Obviously, musicians, artists and poets are those creating create spiritual values for society which is are much (highly) appreciated by the society but though their contributions isn't are not correspondingly paid. For example, in Vietnam (bring it to the last of this sentence) most musicians or artists can't (cannot) support themselves from their interests. 

(A sentence cannot be a new paragraph, so you do not need a new one here. Again, your sentence is too long, thus you cannot check every single grammar in it). Another point worth (make your choice here, another point or another worth?) is that music, art and poetry symbolize a country's culture, so the government needs to show their role in maintaining characteristics in maintain these forms of culture. through  By subsidising (financing) potential (or poor) musicians, artists and poets, there will have a great encouragement to develop their talents and passions to humanity. 

Paragraph 2: Nevertheless, there is a conflict between the limited government budget and the unlimited social demands, which put the priority on other fields such as education, medical ,medicine, and economics economy. In most developing countries, the government budgets isn't are not enough to support for these fields. In addition, people have lowered the value of music, art or poetry, so they aren't (are not) willing to spend their money on its creators (..on artistic works is better). For instance, most people watch music or art programs on television instead of being visual in a concerts or art exhibitions with one-milion tickets.

Conclusion: you may fix clearly that sentence in order to make readers easy to understand :)

---

Thanks for all your comments.I admit that my introduction is too long and there are some mistakes in grammar. Can you give me more comments about the content?how about main ideas as well as examples.And what band can I get?

---

You are welcome. I'm just an Ielts learner, thus I don't know how I can evaluate your band :)). All my recommendations for you are used to my basic mistakes

---

Have you taken ielts exam?  I guess you are at least in band 7.  I hope to have your comments again  for my next writing.:-) because Iam always in poor ideas.

---

Omg, I wish I had that score in my dream :'(. I often get stuck in ideas and it always take my time to finish writing skill. By the way, I will check your essays (if i see them :-) ) in the range of my knowledge.

Answer 3

First time of writing, please correct it. Thank you

 Up to now, various forms of art have played a crucial role in nation's image. Due to this, many people believe that artists, musicians and poems are worth to spend tax money on. While other peope object to that. Both view have different affects on society, which are now discussed.

  On one hand, I'm on side with people who agree with this opinion. Artists who creates spiritual valuables are not only doing it for passion but also making a living from their job. On this account, they have to focus on social trend instead of demonstrating their own visions and thoughts of the world through their working. In a short time, paintings, songs and poems will have such great similarities and lose their unique meanings. So, as long as the governments use taxes to support finance for artistic maker, the artists can have the chance to express their outlook rather than follow the trend.

 On the other hand, I suppose the governments should spend public money on more important fields such as health and education. Those two are the most basic needs of a human's life. Also, they are the first stages for a person to enjoy the priceless beauty of arts. Thereby, governments must satisfy their citizen expectancy on life condition. And then, improving on artists financial status would be considered to be the next step.

All in all, this argument depends on different situations of different countries whether to accept their requirement or not. Both side may bring about benefits for one society on grounds that the top leaders take right actions.

Answer 4

While many people argue that governments should not support financially for artists due to it is a waste of money, I personally believe they need to be received certain financial supports from authorities.

On the one hand, there are some reasons why many individuals disagree that governments need to give financial support to artists, musicians and poets. Firstly, because of limitation on financial resources, authorities can not waste money for arts sector while they also have to spend money on many important issues such as economic development, public healthcare as well as education. For example, some nations in Africa  have to focus financial resourses on public healthcare rather than supports for arts sector due to high percentage of diseases. Additionally, artists can take care of themselves financially without the helps of the government. With development of internet and digital technology, they are completely likely to reach millions of people thereby, they can earn a lot of money to develop their own career.

On the other hand, i think that government need to give financial supports for musicians, poets and artists because of many reasons . The primary reason is that  there are a lot of artists who are unlikely to pursue their passions because of shortage of money although their products have positive effects on citizens's spiritual life. For instance,  Nguyen Van Ty was a famous poets in Vietnam with excellent poems  but he made decision to end his career  because of lack of financial resourses. Another reason is that arts area also has certain contributions to national reputation in beneficial ways. In fact, artists and poets with financial supports from authorities can reach internationally achivements , which may introduce nationally cultural values throughout the world.

By way of conclusion, i once again reaffirm my view that goverment should help financially for artists, musicians and poets because of their contributions to society and economic advantages.

Answer 5

Art is the soup nurturing human’s soul. Awaring of the value of art, some people suggest government give finacial support to artists, musicians and poets. However, critics insist on stating this spending as a waste of money. Each idea has its own value and both sides of this issue will be discussed in my essay.

It is reasonable to consider giving financial support to artist as a fultile spending. Amidst a world where thousand people are starving and craving for food, art is purely a vague value that fails to bring any practical benefits to them. Hardly could the poor enjoy the glamorious beauty of art when their lives are in the verge of dead and their minds are engulfed in worry. The budget for art should be spent to save the life of hundred despicable people lacking neccessity all around the world, whose news is overwhelming in every means of media. Moreover, owning to support the artist with money, government could end up with lacking the budget to develop other key industries, which is vital to improve average living standard.

However, in my opinion, money for art is not a total waste but an essental spending. It is undeniable that we can use money to save a lot of people in need, but ironically, lacking of emotional support is also conductive to the death of a lot more people. It is not by chance that art is born. Art is referred to as a magical panacea which could heal the soul of people and re-energize them. Even a piece of music could enlighten the victims and ease the pain that no kind of medicine can do. Furthermore, by dint of encouraging artists’ creativity, the intellectual property of countries can be enriched, which could be an effectivie way to promote cultural identity.   

Advantage and disadvantage is like two sides of a coin which could not be separated. Giving finicial support to the artist obviously has drawbacks, however in my view, the benefits outweigh its own risks, and this policy should be encouraged.

Answer 6

The issue regarding the granting of financial support to certain industries is a rather controversial one. Money available to the government is collected from tax payers and, in this case, a certain group of specialists wants to benefit from the tax in the form of subsidies. To justify any form of subsidy, we need to argue whether the receiver’s activities will benefit the country as a whole.

If artists, musicians and poets are be unable to support themselves financially without subsidies, it could be harmful for the country’s cultural heritage. The main reason for it to be harmful is because artists, musicians and poets produce works which can give a country a more outstanding cultural identity, without them the country might become unfamiliar with its own culture. It is important for a country to have a clear identity so it can be recognized internationally and to facilitate cultural enrichment among its inhabitants.

Controversially, one might argue that there are many other ways to give a country its identity.For example, some of the aspects with which the Netherlands is associated are scientific research, flower cultivation and water management. These fields of the Dutch industry are currently receiving sizeable subsidies from the government to support them, but they have also been cut recently as a result of austerity.

In my personal opinion there isn’t an immediate need to facilitate an increasing number of artists, musicians and poets if they are not profitable on their own. I believe the money from taxes could better be expended on developing the country’s image in other ways than artistic culture, for example scientific development.

Mong mọi người góp ý giúp mình với 

Answer 7

Mình thử viết như sau, xin nhận gạch đá ạ:

Artists such as musicians and poets play an important part in the society. Therefore, there is a belief that the government should sponsor the artists. In contrast, some people believe that it is a waste of money to do so.

On one hand, a government should give artists financial support for the benefits it bring to a country. If financial support is granted by the government, not only an artist but all people working in art and culture will feel motivated and will try to contribute spiritually to the country whose government takes care of them by creating more and more works of art, for instance: songs, poems, statues,… This support doesn’t only help a country to nurture the talents in art and culture but also protect itself from losing talents to other countries. Moreover, government support in terms of finance ensures that artist generations will go on and on, as they can remove their concerns about financial difficulties.

On the other hand, it might be a waste of money to give a part of a country budget to artists. Artists have many sources of finance beyond salary such as money from selling patents, patronage from private companies,… In fact, they might not the right people who are in need in the society, while many poor children are waiting the government funding. Nothing is particularly good. Government financial support can keep talents, but it can also cause other issues. For example: some artists are more likely to accept offers from other countries just because those countries give them more money, some other artists may take the government support for granted and therefore become lazier.

Spending government budget on artists or not depends on the decision of each government. I personally think that government should take serious consideration before deciding to sponsor artists, as it is a double-edged sword.

Answer 8

The problem of whether or not artists, musicians and poets deserve the fiancial support from the government has set up various debates around the world. In my opinion, the governments ought to concentrate more on other priorities instead.

It is undeniable that there are some facts that make it worth helping artitsts. First of all, the role of art, music and literature is often considered as indelible in people's daily lives since they yield spychological improvment, such as relief from stress, and some physical advantages, for example, decreasing pain. Marvelous pieces of art as well as magnificent novels not only promote the beauty of human's life but also positively permeate our perpsepctives and even shape our thinking. Another reason for the dominance of art in general is that it reflects indigenous cultures and helps passing tradition and knowledge to younger generations. Therefore, there are these advocates who think it is neccessary for the goverments to interfere in the financial situation of art creators in order to keep them doing their jobs. On the other hand, the average income of people working on the fields of art is often lower than that of others which leads to deprived lives of many artists such as Van Goh.

Despite these facts, goverment spending on art is still a watse of money, Due to the upsurge of communicating methods using high-tech devices and telecommunication, it is not difficult for artists to find extra job offers in related fields, thereby making them capable of making the ends meet. Besides, it is commonplace that business is getting invovled considerably in making art, especially in music fields. In Vietnam, a famous musician with goood reputation could earn more than fifty million VND for only one song, which is the result of collaboration with big music companies. So, art, music and literature are more likely to financially benefit private sectors than the governments. In the light of these facts, governmental finance should be spent on other priorities such as health care, economic subsidy and so on.

In conclusion, even though art has been an essential part in human's life, the government should not pay too much attention to this field. Expenditures on art and the like is unwise since it does not bring much benefit for the government itself.

Mong mọi người góp ý giúp em ạ

Answer 9

Nowadays, some people are concerned about whether government should aid sufficient expenses for individual working art field as musicians or poets that cause a controversial issue. In my opinion, I strongly agree that it is necessary to support for artists because of their contribution in advertising country’s culture to the world.

There are a number of reasons why spending a limited amount of money for artists is the waste of money public. Firstly, people who activate artistic performances probably can make money for themselves. They can sell their products to customers who prefer art productions. For example, musicians can earn money from selling the lyric of song for singer or musical producing companies, or poets also obtain more profit from copyright for publication houses. Moreover, artists probably utilize the advantages informational technologies to advertise their private information and products to views through social networks or YouTube website. It is obvious that technological devices will be effective tools which are able to bring all passion and creativity of artist to closely audiences.

However, there are also some persuaded explanation that supporting reasonable finances for people working arts are necessary. Firstly, not all artists receive high range of salary and can guarantee their life. For example, in Viet Nam many traditional artists as painter or classical drama performers has devoted most all time in their life to present on the stages. However, the artist majority lives in poor circumstance. This is because trend of audiences and young people has been listening various musical styles from foreign countries which bring many enthusiastic harmony due by the development of technological information. The final reason for this is that it is possible that artists have made vital contributions to present local cultures to the world. For instance, in Viet Nam traditional pictures which plan typical characteristics as villages, Ha Noi’s old stress, or massive fields by painters have been presents in national museums. Through this way, this seems to pay noticeable attention to foreign traveller and will increase the number of tourist travelling to Viet Nam. As a result, tourism industry may improve and benefit from the art products.  

In conclusion, artist have a noticeable effect on reserving nation’s cultures and advertising cultural features to people in the world. Therefore, artist should be supported financially affordable which will motivate their contribution to country's art activities.     

Hope to get your feedback. thanks

Answer 10

Mình căn bài này viết đủ 40ph thôi chứ cũng chưa sửa gì, nhờ các bạn đóng góp giúp nhé ^^

 Some people suppose that financial support should be given to artists, musicians and poets by the governments while others think that it is a waste of money. I myself agree with the first opinion for some following points.

 First of all, artists, musicians and poets are those who represent their country's culture. No matter what traditional or modern merit they create, they have a great influence on the society. Moreover, it takes a lot of time to finish an artistic product. During that time, they, of course, have to earn in order to afford their lives and families without salary as people who attend other fields. It's my belief that with a financial support from governments, artists will be able to pay more attention to their creation to bring out worthy value instead of having to spend time on material lives.

 However, financial aid may cause some disadvantages. Once this support is in pratice, many people will make use of it to become musicians, poets,..., just have money for unnecessary costs or even bad demands, let alone creating. This problem, to an extent, may be a reason for social burdens.

 In my opinion, to solve this situation, governments had better give only a small amount of money to encourage those with a great passion for creation. It's necessary to force artists getting financial support in condition that they have to produce something new which is popularly accepted or tested by power units responsible for culture. Otherwise, this help will be cut down or cut off after a definite period of time.

 To conclude, i am in support of governments' aid to encourge artists who have a great contribution to the nation's cultural spirit. Governments should take suitable policies in action so as to limit controversial reactions from the citizen.

Answer 11

Art plays a vital role in our spiritual life in any countries and regions in the world. People argure that if the gorvernment should pour money into those who create the artworks or not. I believe on balance that both these views have their own reasons.

            On the one hand, local authorities should create ideal condition in terms of finance so that artists, musicians and poets could give the masterpieces. First of all, although there are many people who are interested in art desire to give their priritual son, they cannot afford to realize their interest. My friend, for example, is good at painting. He has a dream to paint every corners of the city where he lives. However, until now his dream has not been realized because he cannot make a purchase the essentials for that job.

            On the other hand, administration had better sponsor money for other practically specific projects. Each year in many parts of the world there are a large number of people who are suffered from the loss of their home due to natural disasters and other catastrophes. They truly need gorvernment’s assistant for rebuilding the daily life. For instance, 5 years ago a massive earthquake and tsunami caused in Japan, which makes hundreds of thousands of the dwellers become homeless just a night. These cases really need to be helped from the gorverment. Additionally, some rural and isolated areas where there is quite few the public services, so the gorvernment need to care these places rather than give money to art.

            From what has been discussed above, I may draw the conclusion is that although spending money on poets, artist, musicians for their art activities has positive effects, I realize that why this policy wastes a large amount of money from national budget.

Answer 12

Art plays a vital role in our spiritual life in any countries and regions in the world. People argure that if the gorvernment should pour money into those who create the artworks or not. I believe on balance that both these views have their own reasons.

            On the one hand, local authorities should create ideal condition in terms of finance so that artists, musicians and poets could give the masterpieces. First of all, although there are many people who are interested in art desire to give their priritual son, they cannot afford to realize their interest. My friend, for example, is good at painting. He has a dream to paint every corners of the city where he lives. However, until now his dream has not been realized because he cannot make a purchase the essentials for that job.

            On the other hand, administration had better sponsor money for other practically specific projects. Each year in many parts of the world there are a large number of people who are suffered from the loss of their home due to natural disasters and other catastrophes. They truly need gorvernment’s assistant for rebuilding the daily life. For instance, 5 years ago a massive earthquake and tsunami caused in Japan, which makes hundreds of thousands of the dwellers become homeless just a night. These cases really need to be helped from the gorverment. Additionally, some rural and isolated areas where there is quite few the public services, so the gorvernment need to care these places rather than give money to art.

            From what has been discussed above, I may draw the conclusion is that although spending money on poets, artist, musicians for their art activities has positive effects, I realize that why this policy wastes a large amount of money from national budget.