It is argued by many that government spending on art should be spent on other facilities like Medicare and conveyance, while others say that art should be state sponsored. While other facilities like public transport and health services are crucial, I would argue that it should not improved be at the cost of art and culture.
On the one hand the advocates of services like public transport and health care look at it as necessity to live smoothly. If a nation will have efficient transport, advanced medical services, people will be able to commute faster at their jobs and the speed at which goods will reach from warehouses to retailers will enhance in addition to it more lives will be saved with latest technologies in medical, as a result, it will be beneficial for the economy and overall well being of a nation. For example, in Dubai, The Council has done massive investment in infrastructure like roads and hospitals, which has resulted in an improved lifestyle of its citizens
On the other hand, ARTISTS hold responsibility of CONSERVing heritage of the country. Art and culture of any country are the IDENTITY OF THAT PARTICULAR region ALSO WITHOUT ART HOW WILL WE RELAX and GET RID OF REGULAR WORKING ROUTINE? THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS NOT JUST EARNING we need arts to enjoy and soothe the stress we aggregate while working on a regular basis. When art is sustained with discipline it attracts tourism. For example, In Rome there are many state sponsored museums and theatres, which performs the plays from the era of the great Roman empire to commemorate the glory they had during that period of history and this is a major attraction for the historians. Thus, this not only caters to the fun activity of locals, but could also be a boost to economy by attracting tourism and foreign currency.
In conclusion, although services like better roads and hospitals are vital for any nation, art should not be compromised for that because it helps us to retain the rich and glorious heritage and can be contributing economic factor.
It
is argued
by
many
that
government
spending on
art
should
be spent
on
other
facilities like Medicare and conveyance, while others say that
art
should be state sponsored. While
other
facilities like public transport and health
services
are crucial, I would argue that it should not
improved
be at the cost of
art
and culture.
On the one hand the advocates of
services
like public transport and health care look at it as necessity to
live
smoothly
. If a nation
will have
efficient transport, advanced medical
services
,
people
will be able to commute faster at their jobs and the speed at which
goods
will reach from warehouses to retailers will enhance
in addition
to it more
lives
will
be saved
with
latest
technologies in medical,
as a result
, it will be beneficial for the economy and
overall
well being
of a nation.
For example
, in Dubai, The Council has done massive investment in infrastructure like roads and hospitals, which has resulted in an
improved
lifestyle of its
citizens
On the
other
hand, ARTISTS hold responsibility of
CONSERVing
heritage of the country.
Art
and culture of any country are the IDENTITY OF THAT PARTICULAR region
ALSO
WITHOUT
ART
HOW WILL WE RELAX and
GET
RID OF REGULAR WORKING ROUTINE? THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS NOT
JUST
EARNING we need
arts
to enjoy and soothe the
stress
we aggregate while working on a regular basis.
When
art
is sustained
with discipline it attracts tourism.
For example
, In Rome there are
many
state sponsored museums and
theatres
, which performs the plays from the era of the great
Roman empire
to commemorate the glory they had during that period of history and this is a major attraction for the historians.
Thus
, this not
only
caters to the fun activity of locals,
but
could
also
be a boost to economy by attracting tourism and foreign currency.
In conclusion
, although
services
like better roads and hospitals are vital for any nation,
art
should not
be compromised
for that
because
it
helps
us to retain the rich and glorious heritage and can be contributing economic factor.