IELTS Essay 1140 - Government is wasting money on the arts
- Last Updated: Monday, 02 August 2021 01:20
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 162317
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Some people think that the government is wasting money on the arts and this money could be better spent elsewhere.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
You should write at least 250 words.
Sample Answer 1: (Disagree)
Arts reflect the heritage of a country and depict the creativity of an individual. While many believe that financing in arts is a wastage of money, I am of the opposite view as I believe that financing in arts is a good idea for the government.
Many people think that diverting funds towards arts hamper the well-being of citizens and the development of the nation. For example, available monetary resources, according to them, could be put to use in building more hospitals, roads, schools and developing other infrastructures. This means increasing care of the sick and improved transportation to previously inaccessible areas. For children, it caters for better education facilities. These people believe that art is a luxury and many governments cannot afford this extravagance.
However, while investments in such areas are vital, spending on arts is equally important. Allocating money to the development and sustenance of arts helps boost the economy, and arts are important to alleviate crime from society and positively entertain and engage people. Art galleries can attract tourists from all over the world, generating revenue in return while artists can reveal discrimination of society through their works. It is also the case that viewing and practising arts, such as painting, music, acting, dancing and so on, are good sources of venting out stress while educating people at the same time. Such activities also portray a positive picture of a nation to the world. If governments fail to support arts fiscally, many art galleries and theatres would not be able to survive. Arts is as important as science for the true progress of a nation.
In pithy, it is clear to me that spending on arts is beneficial both for an individual and society. Therefore funding arts by the government is not squandering money.
[Written by - Sadaf Malik]
Model Answer 2: (Disagree)
Some people contend that there are many pressing concerns that a country must resolve before putting emphasis on the arts. However, I personally think that arts are an essential part of a culture, and it is quite fair to allocate funds to preserve and develop arts.
Admittedly, there are some justifications by people who oppose spending on promoting arts. First of all, most art projects are expensive with no obvious outcomes that have direct relations to a nation’s income. For example, the monument of Kebangkitan Pahlawan in Malang city that adsorbed almost 1 billion rupiahs does not attract people that much. Besides, art is not a critical aspect of the sustainability of human’s life. Human’s life will not disappear just because they have less taste of aesthetics.
However, I still support that the government should allocate a budget for the arts. Arts are part of a culture and over time become the identity of a nation, eventually, arts could be a major source of income for them. For instance, Bali is an island in Indonesia, where millions of visitors come each year to experience the combination of conventional values and modern lifestyles. The government in Indonesia invests more than a third of its budget to maintain its traditional arts.
Furthermore, art makes a life worth living. Like food, art is a supplement for the human soul. It has a magnificent power to aid buildings, roads, parks, and everything, with its uniqueness. Just imagine how empty a room would be if there is no painting or decoration on the wall! Art is enhancing people’s life by leveraging their experiences and empowering people to possess beautiful imaginations.
To conclude, supporting arts is important for a government as it would enhance the quality of life either by improving the tourism industry or by providing a better artistic facility.
[Written by - Happy Singh]
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people think that the government's budget for art is a waste, and we have more important aspects and sectors where the money should be used. I disagree with the notion because I believe that art is important for the country's development.
Art takes an essential role to increase human development. Developed countries have good art curriculum in their school and they spend a great deal of money to foster arts, which in a way, help preserve the culture of a country and inspire youngsters to become more patriotic. Some governments believe that art is important to increase intellection in society. For example, most children in China who have won science competitions are great at other artistic skills such as playing the piano or painting. They believe by developing students' artistic skills they could train their brains to think more logically and intellectually. So, by piloting money on art, the government could accelerate people's intellectual development.
Moreover, investing the government's budget on art could boost up the revenue for the country. Most foreigners are interested in seeing various world heritages, artworks and cultural variations. Many countries develop tourist places and displays arts to increase their revenue. For instance, in Indonesia, Bali has become an interesting place for tourists because of the local arts of Balinese. As a result, many tourists who come to Bali bring revenue and jobs for the Balinese.
Finally, the government already has big budgets for science, housing, education social security, entertainment, commerce, farming, treatment and other sectors. So dedicating a segment of the budget for the art is always a good idea, and it would not interfere with the development of other sectors.
To conclude, I believe investing the government's budget on art is worth it because it can improve intellection for their society and bring economic income for local residents without affecting other sectors' national budgets.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Arts is considered an essential part of all cultures throughout the world. However, some people believe that government should invest these funds elsewhere rather than spending on acquiring and maintaining the artwork. I completely agree with this viewpoint.
Many people believe that the government is spending a huge amount of money on arts which could be used for the betterment of people or other important development work. For example, this money could be used to build public hospitals so that it can be used by the people who can not afford the huge bills in private hospitals. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it was exposed that millions of people, especially in developing and poor countries, did not receive enough healthcare service and many of them died due to this. If the budget for arts could have been diverted to healthcare to train more nurses and doctors and to build more hospitals, the death toll would have been fewer.
As the young generation in India, we are already informed about the decreasing opportunity of employment in the job market. So the authority should not spend billions on artworks and should rather create jobs. So if this decision is taken wisely by the administration, it would solve more than one concerning problems in the country. Arts is useful when people have food on their table, but it is a luxury when they are on empty stomach.
To conclude, spending big money on arts is meaningless when a country has millions of poor to feed, millions of unemployed youths, and millions of ill people to treat. So spending a huge chunk of money on arts is a no-brainer.
First of all, almost in all countries, a definite percentage of the population suffers from poverty, diseases, and are homeless while arts and artworks get a huge sum of finance. Several poor countries need immediate help to alleviate poverty and illiteracy. For example, in Africa, financial help from the government and rich nations can ensure better life of millions of people. t happens in developed countries as well. The governments don't take proper steps for the welfare of these people as they are expected to. Homeless and elderly people are in need of care and a roof and while they wait for financial support from the government authorities focus on the development of arts. And every year countless lives are lost because of this single reason. We do not need an art museum when there is no hospital to treat people in this locality.
Secondly, natural habitats of animals are being destroyed and deforestation is endangering many species. Moreover, climate change is threatening our very existence on this planet. While we should be focused on more imminent and pressing issues, we are enjoying arts to boast our superiority. If a species get extinct due to our actions, there is no solace in financing artists to paint those animals and display them for the public pleasure. This is simply outrageous and dubious.
In conclusion, we need the arts to appreciate life and financing is required to produce or preserve those works of arts. But when our very existence is threatened due to poverty, climate change as so on, financing a huge amount of money to foster arts is simply counter-productive.
To what extent do you agree with this view?
Answer: It is often argued that the government’s financial support for art is merely a wastage of financial resources and that money should be invested somewhere else to make proper use of it. I completely disagree with this notion and I think "art" is a gateway to preserve a culture and heritage. In this essay, I would be discussing why art should be financed by the government to a great extent.
Firstly, art is an eminent way to express someone’s opinion or imagination regarding an issue. Artists often reflect society’s culture, heritage and traditions in their artistic works and projects. Hence, it will pass the legacy of society to the next generations. In addition, art also educates us about our ancestors' thoughts and mental approach. For example, from Mohenjo-Daro remains, the oldest civilization of Sindh Pakistan, we understand that this civilization was civilized with developed infrastructures of the city and sculpture with humongous bangles in her arm point out that girls dance was a social norm in our ancestors. Hence, our government should definitely invest in art and facilitate this field and its works to keep our legacy alive for thousands of centuries to come.
Secondly, art is a source of immense entertainment for the people who admire it. Nowadays, almost everyone is involved in artistic work or buys art. For instance, peoples tend to buy movie tickets, paintings, sculpture, novels and etcetera, these all are great examples of art and source of entertainment from children to elderly. Hence these reasons are very convincing why this great field should be financed by the government.
To conclude, the government should invest in the art to keep a trace of our culture for upcoming generations and to entertain people in society.