8,政府投资艺术大学考研英语四六级雅思托福GRE考研高考GMAT大小作文宝典策略技巧范文模板.docVIP

Many people think arts such as painting and music cannot directly improve peoples quality of life, and therefore the government should not spend money on this field. Do you agree or disagree? It is sometimes argued that art has nothing to do with a person’s life quality, and it should not be funded by the government. Personally, I completely disagree with this view. To begin with, it is undeniable that art forms an important part in enhancing people’s well-being. Most people in society have a fast life pace. Art serves as a great form of relaxation and helps them to take a break from daily routine. A case in point is that an episode of soap opera, a Hollywood blockbuster or even a piece of popular music can be a an effective pressure remover for those with demanding jobs. In addition, I believe that public expenditure in this field is necessary. Firstly, many people especially youngsters are not able to afford to visit museums or galleries or to attend plays or concerts because of high tickets. Public subsidy can ensure that arts remain available and open to all, regardless of income or social class. This makes art more accessible and enables people to have a better understanding of local cultures. Secondly, public funding promotes the appearance of new art forms. For maximum profits, companies are forced into producing what has proven to be popular in the past to cater to markets and audiences. Art subsidies from public sectors allow companies to take risks. Otherwise, it will reduce the amount of new art being created. In conclusion, there are reasons to believe that art plays a vital role in people’s daily life, and it is necessary and wise to make public investment in this field. Art: when you think of them as a group 时可数 the arts； lottery funding for the arts 表示文科时通常可数 arts ； 泛指普通的艺术时，不可数 注： 柯林斯词典 arts 表示艺术活动时可数 Play 表示戏剧时可数、 Public investment in art can be profitable. It gives a huge boost to tourism to a certain extent, which offers local pe