Many countries spend a lot of money in art. Some people think investment in art is
necessary, but others say money is better spent on improving health and education.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
(Similar Topic – In many countries, government sponsorship of the arts costs millions in taxpayers’ money. There are many more important things to spend money on. Do you agree?)
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
You should write at least 250 words.
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay Sample
Sample Answer 1:
There are some who claim that it is important to maintain the arts, and an equal
number of people who are opposed to continued government funding. I will argue in
favour of this latter point for a number of reasons.
The strongest point is that money spent on the arts could have been used for
considerably more vital purposes. While I admit that the arts are important to a
country’s identity, it must also be given that a nation’s health and wellbeing should be
paramount. The idea that elderly people are forced to wait for essential operations
whilst the money required to increase available medical provision is spent on opera
and ballet is plainly immoral.
In addition to health concerns, there are also more deserving social causes for the
money that should be considered before the arts. Homelessness, unemployment,
single mothers, the crime rate – all of these deserve to be addressed before money is
spent on what is essentially little more than entertainment.
A third factor is that some people have no interest in preserving or funding the art,
feeling that they have little practical value. If the arts are so much in need of
sponsorship, then perhaps this is a reflection of their lack of popularity, in which case
they should not be supported. The money should go to more popular events instead.
For each of these reasons, it can be concluded that there is little reason to continue
funding the arts. Yet perhaps a compromise could be reached by which those keen to
maintain the arts could raise a percentage of their own funds and the government
could reduce its level of sponsorship
Model Answer 2:
On the one hand, huge investments are required for providing basic health services and primary education for all sections of people. Some people fear that large investments in establishing art galleries and preserving traditional art forms can shift government’s focus from more serious social issues. For example, governments in many poor nations are not able to spend the required amount of money for the developing the educational and health sectors, which is said to be the major reason for their underdevelopment. These governments, according to some, wastes large amounts of money for the development of arts.
On the other hand, downplaying the importance of arts in a country is like neglecting the aesthetic, creative and emotional needs of the people. For example, dance, music, drama, painting and similar arts have great importance in the cultural development of the people. Allocation of funds in these areas by governments can also boost the economic development of the country. Many people make a living by becoming the exponents of these art forms. Moreover, preserving and maintaining the cultural traditions of the country through arts can attract tourists from all over the world. Apart from their economic and educational pursuits, man finds great fulfillment in life by spending time for arts, which can satisfy his emotional needs.
In conclusion, spending money for both arts, and educational and health needs are equally important and therefore ignoring either of the sectors is not desirable.
Model Answer 3:
These days, the government spends a large part of its budget not only on public services, but also the arts. Although I agree that it is important to spend money on public services, I do not think spending on the arts is a waste of money.
There are several reasons for spending a significant amount of the government budget on public services. First and foremost, public services are the things such as hospitals, roads and schools, and these things determine the quality of life that most of us will have. For example, if the government does not spend enough money on hospitals, the health of our society may decline. Similarly, if not enough money is spent on schools, our children may not be properly educated. Also, it will be the poor in our society that will be affected more if we do not spend enough on these things because they are the ones more dependent on such services.
However, this does not mean that the arts should be completely neglected. To begin, it is difficult for many arts institutions to generate much profit, so without some help from the government, many theaters and other such places may have to close. Moreover, the arts also have an important impact on our quality of life. Many people get great pleasure in going to see music and theatre performances so it is important that the government assists such institutions so that they can continue to provide entertainment to the public.
To sum up, there are clear benefits of ensuring a large amount of investment goes into public services as this influences the quality of life for nearly all of us. That said, I do not believe spending money on the arts is a waste of money as this too provides important benefits.
Model Answer 4:
While art, history, tradition and culture represent a country, proper healthcare and education facilities are the two most important pillars of a nation. Thus people are often divided on their opinion whether spending money on art or in education and health system is more effective. Personally I believe that education and healthcare sectors should get more priority while a large portion of budget should also be dedicated for the development of art.
People who advocate art often opine that a government should always invest a large amount of money for art and they have their own reasons. They believe that art is also a part of our education, tradition and heritage. It is an important sector and thus should always get priority. They often speak about the renaissance and try to focus how art has contributed to the revolution. They feel that a great portion of budget should always be reserved for the development of art.
On the contrary another group of people feel that, when a government fails to ensure proper education and healthcare facilities, it actually will have little contribution towards the development of art. For instance, if a person has got only few dollars and he is hungry or ill, he won’t purchase an artwork. It is quite natural that we should first make sure that we have foods to eat or medicine to treat us when we are ill and only then we will purchase art works to decorate our home. If we do not have a place to live in or food to eat, purchasing and owning a great artwork is not realistic. Similarly a government should first focus on education and healthcare sectors and then develop the art.
Again, there are very little value of art and similar creative works for a nation that has few literate people. Thus if a country already has a quite strong education and healthcare facility, it can then allocate a large budget for the development of art. For countries that do not have many medical colleges, should not spend more on establishing art colleges.
In summary, I personally believe that allocating money in different sectors in a country should be done based on the economic, social and political conditions of a country. However, with the limited amount of budget healthcare and education should always be the priority while a portion of budget for art is also important.
Model Answer 5:
People have different views about the funding of creative artists. While some people disagree with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for art projects should come from both governments and other sources.
Some art projects definitely require help from the state. In the UK, there are many works of art in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres. In Liverpool, for example, there are several new statues and sculptures in the docks area of the city, which has been redeveloped recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage and history. They serve to educate people about the city, and act as landmarks or talking points for visitors and tourists. Governments and local councils should pay creative artists to produce this kind of art, because without their funding our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government funding for art. The main reason for this view is that governments have more important concerns. For example, state budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and security, among other areas. These public services are vital for a country to function properly, whereas the work of creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury. Another reason for this opinion is that artists do a job like any other professional, and they should therefore earn their own money by selling their work.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.
Submit your Essay here in the comment section, we will add your essay in our post.
(Collected; Source: Internet)