Many governments in the world spend large amounts of money on art, which helps to improve the quality of people’s lives. However, governments should spend money on other things rather than art. Do you agree or disagree? v.4

Societies with a heritage in the ‘arts’ have long been considered culturally sophisticated and advanced. However, with the recent financial crisis this lavishness and expense should be questioned. Tax-payers’ money has to be spent practically rather than on cultural endeavours. Firstly, not everyone in society appreciates art, and, secondly, employment should take precedence. Art can bring quality into one’s life if you are interested. In society, art-lovers are typically in the minority, and other activities, such as sport, are more popular. Take football, for example. Across the globe it is obvious that there are more people watching matches in stadiums than looking at sculptures or paintings. This fact shows that it is impossible for art to bring quality into a community if galleries hold little interest for the people. Secondly, the resources diverted to such projects come from the public and should be spent in a way that benefits them. Commissioning or purchasing art is an insult to tax-payers who endure high unemployment, such as those in Newcastle, UK. This city suffers from historically high unemployment, yet the council commissioned a large sculpture called ‘The Angel of the North’. Financing a job creation project would undoubtedly have been more practical for the local community. To conclude, I believe that it is an untrue to assert that art brings quality into one’s life and I agree that the money should be spent elsewhere. This is because art expenditure only benefits a small minority and the expense involved should benefit the majority. Ideally in the future, governments will recognise that the quality of a person’s life derives from a decent opportunity in life, not a sculpture.