Some people believe that many people who work for creative arts such as painting, theatre and music should be supported financially by government. Others think that artists in creative arts should be supported by other sources instead. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Visual and auditory arts play a key role in education and entertainment, making these fields integral aspects of our society among all ages. Nevertheless, there is a controversial division about whether these areas ought to receive, or if they are even deserving of, any public funds.
The arts form an intrinsic part of a country and have an ability to maintain traditional culture, as long as it is prevented from being absorbed by modern or foreign influences. As a result, government should invest funds into these historical types of art in order to educate its citizens and preserve their existence. There are ancient paintings, theatrical arts and musical instruments that ought to be housed and conserved in museums. The destruction of these precious pieces of art could signify a considerable loss of culture, whereby future generations will miss out on them.
Artists and their outputs ought to adhere to the economic principles of supply and demand, whereby the necessity for their work is dictated by the need from society. Nevertheless, there are artists, dramatists and musicians who are relatively wealthy and do not require subsides from government to survive. As society evolves, perhaps certain genres of art are not needed anymore and it would be economically unfeasible to keep them afloat using taxpayer dollars. Instead, programs that have immediate impacts on the lives of citizens must be focused on, including education, healthcare and social services.
From my perspective, only art forms that are deemed nationally significant ought to receive government funding. In this way, it would be fair for a host of other industries who cannot easily obtain financial assistance.
北京 · 上海 · 武汉 · 广州 · 南京 · 合肥 · 西安 · 成都 · 沈阳 · 郑州 · 厦门 · 深圳 · 香港 · 纽约