【简介】感谢网友“雕龙文库”参与投稿，这里小编给大家分享一些，方便大家学习。
Some people argue that the government should support funding for the arts, while some other people suggest that the money should be used for public health and education. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.
Making the investment in the arts is good for economy, thus improving everyones quality of life. As public resources are drying up, it is easy to explain why the budget blueprint sharply decreases funds for supporting the arts and why the money should be used for public health and education. Nevertheless, if money exactly being the issue, it makes business sense for the government to stabilize funds for the arts for everybodys well-being.
Some people argue that public funds should not be used to support private tastes, meaning the arts. As can be expected, reducing government funds for the arts ought to be an inevitable measure to deal with the exploding deficits because of the recent recession. Based on this view, it behooves the government to focus public resources on the countrys highest priorities--public health and education, as well as national defense and social security. This opinion seems to claim that the arts are not the governments business. A typical question is asked: What role can the arts play in these financially difficult times? Or rather, what are the arts for in an age of austerity?
The answers to these questions may be found in the economic context of a modern country. In fact, a case can be made that it pays to support government funding for the arts, if only for economic benefits. Given that the arts are not as valued as public health and education, the arts industry can help reactivate economy in terms of jobs and growth. If economy is about business and employment, the arts are in the interests of peoples general well-being. Accordingly, there needs to be a shift to understanding that artists and arts group are essentially entrepreneurs and small businesses that make contributions to society in the fields of the visual and performing arts. That is to say, government-funded arts programs have a ripple effect on the countrys economic landscape.
The economic value of the arts cannot be overemphasized particularly in financially hard times because it provides a strong sense of community. Indeed, it is the big shared experience through concerts and theaters and so on, altogether healing perhaps those wounded souls in an economic slowdown. The arts as business must go as usual with government funds so that people can feel more healthy and educated.
Some people argue that the government should support funding for the arts, while some other people suggest that the money should be used for public health and education. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.
Making the investment in the arts is good for economy, thus improving everyones quality of life. As public resources are drying up, it is easy to explain why the budget blueprint sharply decreases funds for supporting the arts and why the money should be used for public health and education. Nevertheless, if money exactly being the issue, it makes business sense for the government to stabilize funds for the arts for everybodys well-being.
Some people argue that public funds should not be used to support private tastes, meaning the arts. As can be expected, reducing government funds for the arts ought to be an inevitable measure to deal with the exploding deficits because of the recent recession. Based on this view, it behooves the government to focus public resources on the countrys highest priorities--public health and education, as well as national defense and social security. This opinion seems to claim that the arts are not the governments business. A typical question is asked: What role can the arts play in these financially difficult times? Or rather, what are the arts for in an age of austerity?
The answers to these questions may be found in the economic context of a modern country. In fact, a case can be made that it pays to support government funding for the arts, if only for economic benefits. Given that the arts are not as valued as public health and education, the arts industry can help reactivate economy in terms of jobs and growth. If economy is about business and employment, the arts are in the interests of peoples general well-being. Accordingly, there needs to be a shift to understanding that artists and arts group are essentially entrepreneurs and small businesses that make contributions to society in the fields of the visual and performing arts. That is to say, government-funded arts programs have a ripple effect on the countrys economic landscape.
The economic value of the arts cannot be overemphasized particularly in financially hard times because it provides a strong sense of community. Indeed, it is the big shared experience through concerts and theaters and so on, altogether healing perhaps those wounded souls in an economic slowdown. The arts as business must go as usual with government funds so that people can feel more healthy and educated.
