雅思大作文范文-社会发展和其他.docxVIP

The government should spend more money on public facilities rather than on artists or artistic projects. To what extent do you agree or disagree?Government sponsorship for arts is a controversial issue, especially when the state is confronted with budget problems. Those who object to public funds for arts believe that money should be diverted to the construction of public facilities. I am of the opinion that the government should take citizens’ benefits into consideration and adjust the spending on art or infrastructures accordingly. It is first important to realize that art is an essential component of cultural legacy, so the protection and development of art has important implications to cultural diversity. In terms of painting, for example, styles, genres, tool and materials differ from culture to culture. An art form is likely to disappear, if it is not well protected. Besides, some works of art such as graffiti, spark people’s imagination and provide them with a novel perspective to view the world. Art can develop a culture in which people pursue it as a hobby. Furthermore, public art boosts the appeal of the built environment, which is reflected in the diversity of architecture and landscaping. Despite the importance of art, public facilities deserve more of government spending than art. Citizens are more interested in the availability of public facilities, as water and electricity supply, schools, libraries and roads, which have a direct impact on their daily lives. By contrast, for most people, sculptures, paintings or operas are luxury items, which cannot bring any tangible benefit to them. Another reason is that the art can sometimes yield high returns and therefore succeed in receiving business sponsorship. This is particularly the case when the arts include music, movies, operas and creative arts. Therefore, it is pointless to support the use of public funds for this purpose, if basic facilities are underfunded. In the light of the facts outlined above,