Though, the regime is promoting the art culture by allocating a certain amount of funds, some think it is a wastage and argue to spent the same at an appropriate place. I strongly disagree with the notion as art forms help to preserve a nation`s tradition and culture. Besides this, the aid government gave also a key income source for the artist and his family.
The primary reason behind my disagreement with the statement is that artisans work towards saving the endangered culture of the country through their art forms. To elaborate, the creative minds preserve the distinct traditions and heritage of the state by portraying them in canvases and painting, etc, which can be a major source of information for future generations. Moreover, the exhibition of these an international platform lays a path to world recognition for an empire. To illustrate, The paintings demonstrating iron bridge construction in London back in 1970painted by Graham Sill is the seldom piece to research about the design of the bridge. Thus, the financial assistance by the administration is a much-needed step to support their unrecognized duty towards nation growth.
Although some painting gets millions of dollar at auction, it is hard for many to survive in this field. To paraphrase, taking a passion as a profession could be despondent for a plethora of innovators. If someone has a career as an originator, it becomes arduous for them to get through with their families. Numerous studies conducted in the UK show that a number of creators hold back after seeing low income and zero support from the government. Therefore, it is mandatory for state-rulers to support Passionists So, they and their beloved ones can live in a society with basic amenities needed for survival.
To conclude, I disapproved of the notion to lavish the money granted to artisans on another place as they are taking out time to conserve the national heritage and money is the foremost necessity for them and their families for survival.
Though, the regime is promoting the art culture by allocating a certain amount of funds,
some
think
it is a wastage and argue
to spent
the same at an appropriate place. I
strongly
disagree with the notion as art forms
help
to preserve a
nation`s
tradition and culture.
Besides
this, the aid
government
gave
also
a key income source for the artist and his family.
The primary reason behind my disagreement with the statement is that artisans work towards saving the endangered culture of the country through their art forms. To elaborate, the creative minds preserve the distinct traditions and heritage of the state by portraying them in canvases and painting, etc, which can be a major source of information for future generations.
Moreover
, the exhibition of these an international platform lays a path to world recognition for an empire. To illustrate, The paintings demonstrating iron bridge construction in London back in 1970painted by Graham Sill is the seldom piece to research about the design of the bridge.
Thus
, the financial assistance by the administration is a much-needed step to support their unrecognized duty towards nation growth.
Although
some
painting
gets
millions of dollar at auction, it is
hard
for
many
to survive in this field. To paraphrase, taking a passion as a profession could be despondent for a plethora of innovators. If someone has a career as an originator, it becomes arduous for them to
get
through with their families. Numerous studies conducted in the UK
show
that a number of creators hold back after seeing low income and zero support from the
government
.
Therefore
, it is mandatory for state-rulers to support
Passionists
So
, they and their beloved ones can
live
in a society with basic amenities needed for survival.
To conclude
, I disapproved of the notion to lavish the money granted to artisans on another place as they are taking out time to conserve the national heritage and money is the foremost necessity for them and their families for survival.