It is argued that governments are wasting their resources by paying for the preservation of arts and that they would be better off spending the funds on public sectors. While it is crucial to increase spending on public services such as education or transportation, governments should not cut all their expenses on the arts.
On the one hand, improving public services is crucial for the development of a country. For example, when the funds are utilised for traffic projects like road maintenance or public transportation, the number of traffic accidents will reduce, and people can plan their trips better around the city thanks to frequent bus and train services. Furthermore, with sufficient funding, the authorities can keep public workers happy and avoid their going on strikes. Imagine all teachers in a city stop teaching for a day to protest against low wages. It would lead to classes being cancelled, and parents having to stay home to look after their schoolchildren. That would be a very troublesome / difficult situation for families and offices alike.
On the other hand, it is equally important to spend on the arts. If the officials decided to stop spending on music and theatre, it would be a serious mistake and could result in the loss of national identity. We all know that arts and culture are interrelated. If a country does not emphasize on preserving the arts, the cultural aspects associated with traditional music and theatre will gradually disappear. The nation will in turn lose their cultural uniqueness, which is of great importance for tourism. If travellers find nothing extraordinary about a culture, it is less likely that they will make that country their desired destination.
In conclusion, I am against the idea of governments cutting all investment in arts to spend on public services. The authorities should balance their spending between these two sectors so public services can operate smoothly and at the same time cultural diversity and uniqueness can be maintained.
It
is argued
that
governments
are wasting their resources by paying for the preservation of
arts
and that they would be better off
spending
the funds on
public
sectors. While it is crucial to increase
spending
on
public
services
such as education or transportation,
governments
should not
cut
all their expenses on the arts.
On the one hand, improving
public
services
is crucial for the development of a country.
For example
, when the funds are
utilised
for traffic projects like road maintenance or
public
transportation, the number of traffic accidents will
reduce
, and
people
can plan their trips better around the city thanks to frequent bus and train
services
.
Furthermore
, with sufficient funding, the authorities can
keep
public
workers happy and avoid their going on strikes. Imagine all teachers in a city
stop
teaching for a day to protest against low wages. It would lead to classes
being cancelled
, and parents having to stay home to look after their schoolchildren. That would be a
very
troublesome / difficult situation for families and offices alike.
On the other hand
, it is
equally
important
to spend on the
arts
. If the officials decided to
stop
spending
on music and
theatre
, it would be a serious mistake and could result in the loss of national identity. We all know that
arts
and culture
are interrelated
. If a country does not emphasize on preserving the
arts
, the cultural aspects associated with traditional music and
theatre
will
gradually
disappear. The nation will in turn lose their cultural uniqueness, which is of great importance for tourism. If
travellers
find nothing extraordinary about a culture, it is less likely that they will
make
that country their desired destination.
In conclusion
, I am against the
idea
of
governments
cutting all investment in
arts
to spend on
public
services
. The authorities should balance their
spending
between these two sectors
so
public
services
can operate
smoothly
and at the same time cultural diversity and uniqueness can
be maintained
.