anasimy

Hi, I am a student from France, and I am seeking advices from English speakers on my essay. I have been practicing a lot... If someone has a minute to help I would very grateful! ----- Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. In the 21st century, the question of what should be the priority in government and public expenses is a big issue. In every country, as the state and government funding grows bigger, people's criticism towards expenses choices grows louder. Surely, a quick look at the current state of affairs reveals that public money is sometimes not spent in the field that the more urgently needs it: public hospitals and universities are decrepit, and more importantly, poor people don't have enough money to even buy food and live a correct life. On this basis, it seems like we would be right to say that states should suspend funding for the arts when too many citizen are facing dire economic conditions, because museums, art perfomances, festivals and the like are supposed to be superfluous when money is crucially needed for urgent problems such as hunger or unemployment. One ought yet to take a more balanced stance on the issue. This essay will discuss the reason that the idea to suspend government funding for the art in times of economic hardship for the people is flawed, for three reasons. First, funding arts are benefiting all the people and especially the poorest one, who cannot afford it without government subsides. Second, arts most entirely rely on public funding, contrary to charity which can be private. Finally, there are many other fields in which government could make economies and avoid money waste rather than cutting the budget for the arts: reorganize the administration and lower state budget for internal functionning are one example. The most important reason why we should not cut the funding for art is that for a country to have a living artistic life depends entirely upon public fundings, since private money very rarely goes to art in general beyond a personal enjoyment. A very rich person will buy a painting or a sculpture for his house and in doing so he will support the artist who has made it, but he will not pay to finance painting schools that has formed the artist. Similarly, festivals, theater houses, music schools, and all other public institutions that promote art are all run by public money because there is not enough private money to finance them, spontaneously. Specifically, the reason for that is that art is not immediatly lucrative, so there is less interest for private person to invest in it. The result of this is that without public funding, the artistic vitality of a country would be very badly affected, almost rendered inexistent. So government should take this situation in consideration before they decide to take money away from artistic institutions. Another reason for my claim that cutting funds for art in times of economics hardship is not a good idea is because most of the time, public funding of art is the most beneficiary for poor and modest people. For example, a rich family will always be able to pay for music or painting class for their kids. They will go to the best private schools are receive art education, whereas in poor families, kind acquiataince with art most entirely depends on public fundings made for them to go freely to museum, to have music class in public schools, etc. Without those expenses those poorer kids would not have access to art. This shows that in the case of economic hardship, like unemployment or hunger, poorer families would be actually the first victims of budget cuts in arts. Some might argue that unemployed, starving, or poor people who prefer public money to go directly to them rather than to museum or music schools, even if they are the first beneficiaries. Yet, I believe this argument to be sophistic: it is not a choice between eating, having a correct life standard OR having access to art. A well-run state needs to be able to meet the two ends. In addition, very often public money is wasted and could be saved for solving unemployement or social problems rather than cutting money from art institutions that most of the time are a very tiny part of a state budget. For example, in times of hunger or unemployment or economic crisis, a state would rather cut its budget for the military than for the art. It would morally more justified and economically more effective, since a lot more money is used in the army rather than in the art. To sum up, a lot more correct and balanced stance on this issue is that arts funding should certainly be lowered in times of economics crises, but not reduced to zero and considered as a superfluous expenses. Art depends almost totally on public fundings, and those public fundings of art benefit primarily the poor people. In addition they are a lot of different solution for state to make economies and finance social help in times of economic hardship. To think that cutting the budget for art is a solution is erroneous and superficial thinking.