A school of people believe that the arts is worthy of a large amount of government grants, while the opposed argue that common services and infrastructures deserve more of them. Personally, I reckon that we should give top priority to the latter, especially when administrations have a limited budget.
The supporters claim that art funds are of great significance to both ordinary beings and artists. Firstly, these capitals are conducive in cultivating artists. With financial support from the state, they might be less troubled with survival but more devoted to increasing expertise and creating high-quality artworks. Secondly, average people are likely to enhance artistic attainment and aesthetic temperament due to these funds. If more arts institutions (such as museums, art galleries, exhibition halls etc. ) are established and refurbished, individuals maybe exposed to arts appreciation and training more often.
Despite this, others argue that governments should put more capitals into public welfare systems. It is public investment that satisfies essential living demands of citizens. For example, improving mass transportation, such as underground railways, highways and train rails, facilitates daily commuting and long-distance traveling. In contrast, arts investment does not necessarily benefit general public in the terms of personal wellbeing.
In conclusion, it is true that investing the arts has countless merits, but I observed that improvement in public facilities is more beneficial to economic advancement and fiscal revenue growth, therefore it should be attached with greater importance. With well-equipped infrastructures, cities can widely attract investments, thereby increasing local wealth. By comparison, arts investment will not yield such instant and tangible returns.
A school of
people
believe that the
arts
is worthy of a large amount of
government
grants, while the opposed argue that common services and infrastructures deserve more of them.
Personally
, I reckon that we should give top priority to the latter,
especially
when administrations have a limited budget.
The supporters claim that
art
funds are of great significance to both ordinary beings and artists.
Firstly
, these capitals are conducive in cultivating artists. With financial support from the state, they might be less troubled with survival
but
more devoted to increasing expertise and creating high-quality artworks.
Secondly
, average
people
are likely to enhance artistic attainment and aesthetic temperament due to these funds. If more
arts
institutions (such as museums,
art
galleries, exhibition halls etc.
)
are established
and refurbished, individuals maybe exposed to
arts
appreciation and training more
often
.
Despite this, others argue that
governments
should put more capitals into
public
welfare systems. It is
public
investment
that satisfies essential living demands of citizens.
For example
, improving mass transportation, such as underground railways, highways and train rails, facilitates daily commuting and long-distance traveling.
In contrast
,
arts
investment
does not
necessarily
benefit general
public
in the terms of personal
wellbeing
.
In conclusion
, it is true that investing the
arts
has countless merits,
but
I observed that improvement in
public
facilities is more beneficial to economic advancement and fiscal revenue growth,
therefore
it should
be attached
with greater importance. With well-equipped infrastructures, cities can
widely
attract
investments
, thereby increasing local wealth. By comparison,
arts
investment
will not yield such instant and tangible returns.