The role of the arts in modern life is unique, providing people with entertainment and yielding various psychological rewards, such as relief from stress. Despite these benefits, the arts have been taken as luxury goods in many cases. It is suggested that public money of a city should be concentrated in projects like public facilities, which are more likely to bring immediate benefits to the public, rather than the arts. There are a number of facts indicating that this position is right.
Public facilities, widely accepted as one of the main precursors of a city's development, should be one of the highest priorities. Those underdeveloped cities in particular, should direct sufficient funding toward public facilities. While municipal office buildings, courthouses and post offices are essential components of public services, libraries, hospitals, parks, playing fields, gymnasiums and swimming pools are available to the public for social, educational, athletic and cultural activities. By boosting spending on public facilities, cities are more capable to satisfy the needs of citizens and improve their standard of living.
In addition to social benefits, there are economic merits that public facilities can offer to communities. An integrated transport network (maritime, land and inland waterway transport and civil aviation), example, promises the smooth and speedy movement of goods and people in a city. Industrial products, as well as agricultural produce of a city, can be delivered to other cities in exchange for steady income. Of equal importance are public Internet facilities. Providing access to information by improving Internet and other telecommunications facilities have relevance to the ease with which businesses in a city receive, process, utilises, and send information. It is no exaggeration to say that entrepreneurs, either from home or abroad, will first examine the infrastructure of a city before deciding whether to pursue business opportunities there.
The arts, by comparison, although enabling people to see the world and the human condition differently and to see a truth one might ignore before, do not merit government spending. The first refers to music, film and literature altogether-are more likely to attract the investment of the private sector than public facilities. Businesspeople continue to invest in the arts in the expectation of earning lump sum income and the arts in return, continue to flourish without the government spending. Meanwhile, the arts are a key component of a culture and naturally passed down from one generation to another. Unlike public facilities, they require no money to survive.
It is therefore clear that construction of public facilities should be given the foremost consideration. The concern about the well-being of individual citizens and that, of a city is more acute than the apprehension about the survival and prospects of the arts, something that businesses have a stake in.
The role of the
arts
in modern life is unique, providing
people
with entertainment and yielding various psychological rewards, such as relief from
stress
. Despite these benefits, the
arts
have
been taken
as luxury
goods
in
many
cases. It
is suggested
that
public
money of a city should
be concentrated
in projects like
public
facilities, which are more likely to bring immediate benefits to the
public
,
rather
than the
arts
. There are a number of facts indicating that this position is right.
Public facilities,
widely
accepted
as one of the main precursors of a city's development, should be one of the highest priorities. Those underdeveloped
cities
in particular
, should direct sufficient funding toward
public
facilities. While municipal office buildings, courthouses and post offices are essential components of
public
services, libraries, hospitals, parks, playing fields, gymnasiums and swimming pools are available to the
public
for social, educational, athletic and cultural activities. By boosting spending on
public
facilities,
cities
are more capable to satisfy the needs of citizens and
improve
their standard of living.
In addition
to social benefits, there are economic merits that
public
facilities can offer to communities. An integrated transport network (maritime, land and inland waterway transport and civil aviation), example, promises the smooth and speedy movement of
goods
and
people
in a city. Industrial products,
as well
as agricultural produce of a city, can
be delivered
to other
cities
in exchange for steady income. Of equal importance are
public
Internet facilities. Providing access to information by improving Internet and other telecommunications facilities have relevance to the
ease
with which businesses in a city receive, process,
utilises
, and
send
information. It is no exaggeration to say that entrepreneurs, either from home or abroad, will
first
examine the infrastructure of a city
before
deciding whether to pursue business opportunities there.
The
arts
, by comparison, although enabling
people
to
see
the world and the human condition
differently
and to
see
a truth one might
ignore
before
, do not merit
government
spending. The
first
refers to music, film and literature altogether-are more likely to attract the investment of the private sector than
public
facilities. Businesspeople continue to invest in the
arts
in the expectation of earning lump sum income and the
arts
in return, continue to flourish without the
government
spending. Meanwhile, the
arts
are a key component of a culture and
naturally
passed down from one generation to another. Unlike
public
facilities, they require no money to survive.
It is
therefore
clear
that construction of
public
facilities should be
given
the foremost consideration. The concern about the well-being of individual citizens and that, of a city is more acute than the apprehension about the survival and prospects of the
arts
, something that businesses have a stake in.