Many governments in the world spend large amounts of money on art which helps to develop quality in people’s life. However, governments should spend money on other things rather than art. Do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion.
Societies with a heritage in the ‘arts’ have long been considered culturally sophisticated and advanced. However with the recent financial crisis this lavishness and expense should be questioned. Tax payers money has to be spent practically rather than on cultural endeavours. Firstly not everyone in society appreciates art and secondly employment should take precedence.
Art can bring quality into ones life if you are interested. Amongst a society art-lovers are typically in the minority and other activities such as sport are more popular. Take football for example, across the globe it is obvious that there are more people watching matches in stadiums than looking at sculptures or art. This fact makes it impossible that art can bring quality into a community if the galleries hold little interest for the region.
Secondly the resources diverted to such projects comes from the public and should be spent in a way that benefits them. Commissioning or purchasing art is an insult to tax payers who endure poor high unemployment such as those in Newcastle, UK. This city suffers from historically high unemployment yet the council commissioned a large sculpture called ‘The Angel of the North’. Financing a job creation project would undoubtedly have been more practical for the local community.
To conclude I believe that it is an unjust affirmation that art brings quality into ones life and agree that the money should be spent elsewhere. This is because art expenditures only benefit a small minority and secondly the expense involved should benefit the majority. Ideally in the future governments will recognise that quality in a person’s life derives from a decent opportunity in life, not a sculpture.