Should governments spend money on art

<span class='text_page_counter'>(1)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=1>

<b>Should governments spend money on art, when they have so</b>
<b>many other important issues and concerns? </b>

<b>Spending on Art</b>

<i>Art is a basic human need. Governments have a responsibility to</i>
<i>spend money on art for their citizens.</i>

Throughout the ages, man has tried to create beauty through painting,
music, sculpture and other artistic expression. It seems to be a basic need of
humans to surround themselves with art. However some people feel that
government money spent on art is wasted, particularly when there are so
many other demands on it. This essay will examine the conflict between
those who say art is important and those who feel it is a waste of money.

It can be wrong for governments to spend large sums of money on art.
Too often, governments spend unwisely. They spend money on art not
because a picture is good or a museum is needed, but for political reasons.
Cities end up with huge statues or empty expensive buildings that are used
only by a few people or the elite. Another point is that the artworks are often
chosen to represent social or political rather than artistic ideas. The city gets
yet another statue of the leader or an ugly monument to national aspirations.
A third point is that governments often respond to fashions, and tastes in art
can change very rapidly. Without careful advice an expensive collection of
worthless paintings or tasteless productions can be the result.

However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend
any money at all on art. Painters, musicians, and composers cannot survive
without financial support. Rich people or large companies do finance art, but
then it is often inaccessible to ordinary people. Governments have a duty to
make this art available to everyone. However, the most important reason

why governments should support the arts is because an appreciation of art is
one of the things that makes life worthwhile. Humans do not need just
shelter and food. Creative people have always tried to look at things in a new
way and to make the world a better place through painting, music, poetry,
calligraphy, sculpture, dance, and numerous other forms of expression. While
art may not make us immortal, it does make the world a richer place for
future generations.

In conclusion, although people do need to be provided with the
necessities of life, such as housing and medical care, governments also have
a duty to provide their citizens with something more. They should make sure
that they pass on beauty, ideas and expression to the next generation and
make art available to all instead of being the possession of only the few. I
firmly believe that spending money on art is a vital part of a government's
responsibility, and I am confident that my country will be able to contribute
its share to the richness of the world's art and creativity.

<b>Should governments spend money on art, when they have so</b>
<b>many other important issues and concerns? </b>

<b>Spending on Art </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(2)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=2>

Many people's lives are richer because of art - music, paintings,
calligraphy, pictures, sculpture, poems and dance. However, some people
feel that governments should be spending money on housing, medical care,
or defence, instead of on art. This essay will discuss whether governments
should or should not spend money on the arts.

<b>There are several reasons why governments should not finance</b>
artists. First of all, artists should have to follow the same rules as the rest

of the market. If there is a demand for their music or sculpture, then they
will be rich. Secondly, politicians generally do not have good taste. They will
waste public money on popular art or on their own preferences. But the
<b>main reason why governments should minimize spending on the art</b>
<b>world is that there are more important areas like housing, roads, hospitals,</b>
and factories which need the money first.

<b>However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not</b>
spend any money at all on art. Everybody needs some beauty in their life,
but not everyone can afford a Picasso or a piece of music. Governments
should provide money for museums or concert halls for everyone. <b>Another</b>
<b>point is that art allows people to express themselves and this is good for</b>
society, culture and thought. Thirdly, artists can be good for the economy
by producing music, films, and attracting tourists.

<b>All in all, governments should prioritize their spending carefully, but</b>
they should also allocate some of their budget for art. It is part of their duty
to society and to future generations.

</div>

<!--links-->