IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample 556 - Government investment in the arts is a wate of money

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Government investment in the arts, such as music and theatre, is a wate of money. Government must invest this money in public services instead.

To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowladge or experience.

You should write at least 250 words.

Sample Answer 1:
In some countries the higher tax incomes come from arts such as movie industry, music or theatre business. In this regards arts are beneficial investment for the government. On the other hand, arts, such as music are the food for soul and government should patronize this sector.  

Moreover, in big ccountries like America and United kingdom arts are one of the biggest earning source for those countries. Fact that, many people want to come to these country because their arts are the best in the world and famous. Due to the fact movie industries, music or theatre has been encouraged the government for tax. Indeed, it can help the government to invest some money to public services as well. Hence, those countries are famous for music and movies and its imposing in the world and has become destiny for many people around the world for gaining their passion in arts.

Undoubtedly, in United States of America, we can see that musician, an actor or an actress have higher incomes but they should taxable for government that is  a policy not only in this country but also in some countries that have good arts too. For this reason to develop some areas, for instance healthcare, public transportation, etc. The government should encourage the artists and arts. Clearly, to give excellent service for American civil society, arts should not be ignored. Furthermore, taxpayers awareness among arts industries are higher and which is rapidly changing economic growth of America.

Arts are the important media to give profits for USA whereas in UK too. Arts represent the identity, uniqueness, heritage and reflection of a nation.  In brief, investing in arts is by means a waste of money, rather it is a good investment both for economic growth and cultural enrichment.

[ by -  Dessy Itaar ]

Sample Answer 2:
Government spending on arts, has long been a contentious issue. Many counter the idea of government incurring expenses to promote arts. However, I feel governments should continue to spend money on arts. This will be argued by analyzing how arts can contribute to a country’s economy as well as serve as a platform to achieve one’s goals.

To begin, arts such as music and theatre are steady sources of income for a country. A case in point would be New Zealand, where the government supports new artists by lending them money to kick-start their careers, which in turn enables the state to collect taxes on the revenue earned by these artists. This stream of income would be lost if there’s no spending to foster local artists. Hence it is clear that arts are vital for a country’s economic health rather than being a liability to it.

In addition, having a decent infrastructure for creative industries, would mean realization of dreams of millions who wish to be artists. For instance, in UK, a person could choose to adopt arts as a career path, enabling him or her to earn a fair livelihood, rather than having to reluctantly pick a profession that he or she does not feel passionate about. A state where government doesn’t invest in arts would most likely prevent people to go after what they long for, resulting in frustration on the part of people. Therefore arts play an important part in contentedness of the individuals of a nation.

In summary, government should continue to devote resources to arts since, its significance in a country’s tax system and bringing happiness to people should not be underestimated. Henceforth, government’s funding of arts is not a waste of a country’s resources.

[ by -  Sameed Qureshi ]

Sample Answer 3:
Some people are convinced that the financial reserve of the government should be allocated on the public sector rather than on arts. However, I strongly believe that arts play a major role in the development of a country.

Primarily, arts symbolize the culture of a nation. In the primitive era, people celebrated their occasion through music and dance. These cultural activities have become a religious ritual for them, thereby representing an aboriginal tradition. It is in the style of an art such as designs of garments and historic rock sculptures that determine the ethnicity of a group. For example, in the Philippines, the Ifugao tribe in Bulacan is well known for wearing a bahag attire, which looks like an old an old-fangled brief. Their cultural identity becomes famous because of their artistic rice terraces.

Furthermore, arts have become the freedom of expression. Some arts enthusiast can demonstrate their feelings through music or paintings. Such activities have a reasonable means of portraying emotions. One example of this is expressing depression through a composition of a melancholic song rather than to venture in a destructive behavior such as inebriation of alcohol. Thus, art is a good passion that entices the people to do recreational activities.

Finally, it is widely believed that some artistic outputs have contributed to the tourism of a country. There are holidaymakers who visit a country so they can witness a painting, sculptures or any artistic masterpiece. To illustrate, the painting of Juan Luna “ the Spolarium “ in the Philippines has lured a considerable number of foreign visitors. This is because the painting depicts the suffering of most Filipinos at the time of Spaniard regime, which becomes a historical event in the country.

To conclude, I am convinced that arts have a greater contribution to the society. Not only does it represent the cultural heritage of a country, but it also encourage performing a formidable masterpiece that can promote the culture of a country.

[ by -  Chino ]

Sample Answer 4:
Art, music and theatre constitutes an integral part of the culture of any country. Government often found supporting these by arranging requisite amount of funds but for some spending on these activities should ideally be utilised for the welfare of the country’s people as it otherwise does not serve any good purpose. I think there is nothing wrong in supporting arts of a county and government is the ideal body who should do this.

With globalisation, often culture of developing countries transforms to adopt the traits of developed countries. For example traditional street plays in India are things of past and people are more inclined toward watching movies, a culture from the western countries. This poses a threat on existence of intrinsic regional culture of a country which actually defines the spirit and uniqueness of the country. So it is the responsibility of the government to support traditional art, music and theatre which tends to carry the cultural heritage of a country.

Every year a lot is spent by the government to promote regional art, music and theatre and this is something which people suggest is a waste of money. Prima facie it is correct, but on the other hand it helps promoting these features of a country which helps the government to attract more and more tourists from other country and it also acts as livelihood of the people who are solely dependent on these skills. For instance, nation foreign exchange has risen 20% since the last five year thanks to increased promotion by government.

To summarise, it may involve huge cost for nation to support art, music and theatre but it should be seen as investment for supporting the unique heritage of the country.

[ by -  Bhupender Bhakuni ]

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rating 5.00 (1 Vote)

Add comment

Security code