Issues related to government spending on arts are frequently discussed these days, especially in the media. It is often said that same investments must be made for civil services rather than music and theatre. This essay examines arguments both for and against expenditure on arts by the government.
On one hand, proponents of arts are of the opinion that younger generation does not pursue arts as a career choice. This is mostly because, only mainstreams subjects like Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicines are thought to bring good salaries. While, this is not wholly untrue, government investing money in ventures related to music and theatre can give these fields the required push to turn them into attractive employment sources. Not only this, arts also help us preserve our culture. For example, local theatre that plays folk music would be lost to history if not for the endeavors of people interested in arts. As such, it is a matter of high import that government must lend their support to such theatres in any way possible.
On the other hand, the opponents argue that government must prioritize the wellness of public above all else. They expect authorities to make decisions that will allow society to lead a comfortable life. Therefore, these people want the government to invest in public wellbeing and spend their budgets on construction of schools, colleges and roads. This will help in uplifting the nation as a whole. For example, the government must first invest in building a school and later think of investing in setting up music as subject with in the same school.
In conclusion, though I agree that investments must be made towards arts, the advantages of having public services outweigh the advantages of having theatre. Government must make conscious decisions and must prioritize public services over arts wherever necessary.
Issues related to
government
spending on
arts
are
frequently
discussed these days,
especially
in the media. It is
often
said that same investments
must
be made
for civil services
rather
than
music
and
theatre
. This essay examines arguments both for and against expenditure on
arts
by the
government
.
On one hand, proponents of
arts
are of the opinion that younger generation does not pursue
arts
as a career choice. This is
mostly
because
,
only
mainstreams subjects like Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicines are
thought
to bring
good
salaries. While, this is not wholly untrue,
government
investing money in ventures related to
music
and
theatre
can give these fields the required push to turn them into attractive employment sources. Not
only
this,
arts
also
help
us preserve our culture.
For example
, local
theatre
that plays folk
music
would
be lost
to history if not for the endeavors of
people
interested in
arts
. As such, it is a matter of high import that
government
must
lend their support to such
theatres
in any way possible.
On the other hand
, the opponents argue that
government
must
prioritize the wellness of
public
above all
else. They
expect
authorities to
make
decisions that will
allow
society to lead a comfortable life.
Therefore
, these
people
want the
government
to invest in
public
wellbeing
and spend their budgets on construction of schools, colleges and roads. This will
help
in uplifting the nation as a whole.
For example
, the
government
must
first
invest in building a school and later
think
of investing in setting up
music
as subject with in the same school.
In conclusion
, though I
agree
that investments
must
be made
towards
arts
, the advantages of having
public
services outweigh the advantages of having
theatre
.
Government
must
make
conscious decisions and
must
prioritize
public
services over
arts
wherever necessary.