Some people believe that the arts should receive subsidises or
sponsorship from government and big companies. Other feel such spending is a
luxury and that it would be better if it were invested in scientific projects.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
The debate over the issue of whether art
should receive subsidise or sponsorship from government and private companies
has become never ending controversy in society. It is argued by some people
that such spending is important for future economic and social aspects.
However, this essay will argue that government money could be more beneficially
used for scientific projects such as in health.
Some people think that arts, for example,
painting, films, and music, have various positive impacts. Arts provide a
legacy for future generation such as phenomenal paintings and historical
building, which can be source of learning. This will hopefully contribute to
the development of the tourism industry which will have a positive impact to
economic growth. It is also argued that arts will facilitate entertainment to
public.
However, subsidise from government are
better to be allocated for scientific programs, especially health projects.
Instead of spending billion of rupiah on the arts, the money could be spent on
scientific research which have more beneficial results for human life. For
instance, the discovery of new medicines and vaccines has the potential to cure
dangerous and contagious diseases such as Ebola and HIV. Moreover, if the money
spend mostly on health sector, people will have a better quality of life in the
future, so the people will be more productive that can enhance economic
development. The result of research in health could educate people about health
issues. (RSW)
No comments:
Post a Comment