Whether art and artists should receive government funding has always been a topic of debate. Some people argue that the government should spend its money on more important things like health and education instead of sponsoring artists and art events. I do not quite agree with this view. In my opinion, it is important to spend on sectors like healthcare, education and infrastructure. This, however, does not mean that art and artists can be neglected.
Artists can’t save lives or build bridges, but they still contribute to the society in their own way. Music, for example, soothes the mind. Listening to music is actually the favourite pastime of busy professionals who lead extremely stressed out lives. In other words, by supporting music and musicians, the government is indirectly helping the emotional well being of its people. Likewise, dancers enthralled the audience with their performance. Cultural programmes like music and dance, draw a large audience and generate money. By simply organizing such events for art lovers and tourists, the government can not only help budding artists who need an avenue to showcase their talent, but also generate revenue that can be used for developing other sectors.
Tourism is a major source of revenue for governments all over the world and artists have immense power to attract tourists. For example, Indian classical dances and music have always fascinated a large number of tourists. They visit the country to watch these performances and even enrolled in dance and music schools here to learn the art. This is a source of revenue for the government.
To conclude, nobody is asking the government to promote the arts at the expense of other sectors. Any such move would be suicidal. Instead, what the government needs to do is to earmark a small portion of its revenue for the promotion of the arts. Like any other sector, the arts also generate jobs and help the society on the whole.
Whether
art
and
artists
should receive
government
funding has always been a topic of debate.
Some
people
argue that the
government
should spend its money on more
important
things like health and education
instead
of sponsoring
artists
and
art
events
. I do not quite
agree
with this view. In my opinion, it is
important
to spend on sectors like healthcare, education and infrastructure. This,
however
, does not mean that
art
and
artists
can
be neglected
.
Artists can’t save
lives
or build bridges,
but
they
still
contribute to the society in their
own
way.
Music
,
for example
, soothes the mind. Listening to
music
is actually the
favourite
pastime of busy professionals who lead
extremely
stressed
out
lives
. In
other
words, by supporting
music
and musicians, the
government
is
indirectly
helping the emotional
well being
of its
people
.
Likewise
, dancers enthralled the audience with their performance. Cultural
programmes
like
music
and dance, draw a large audience and generate money. By
simply
organizing such
events
for
art
lovers and tourists, the
government
can not
only
help
budding
artists
who need an avenue to showcase their talent,
but
also
generate
revenue
that can be
used
for developing
other
sectors.
Tourism is a major source of
revenue
for
governments
all over the world and
artists
have immense power to attract tourists.
For example
, Indian classical dances and
music
have always fascinated
a large number of
tourists. They visit the country to
watch
these performances and even enrolled in dance and
music
schools here to learn the
art
. This is a source of
revenue
for the
government
.
To conclude
, nobody is asking the
government
to promote the
arts
at the expense of
other
sectors. Any such
move
would be suicidal.
Instead
, what the
government
needs to do is to earmark a
small
portion of its
revenue
for the promotion of the
arts
. Like any
other
sector, the
arts
also
generate jobs and
help
the society
on the whole
.
7Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
7Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
7Mistakes