issue.......essay

[dicapino]

When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings

 

Should older buildings give way for modern development or be given precedence over modern buildings? Some persons would argue that old buildings should be kept standing, so as to preserve culture and history for future generations, but others aver that modern development should be given precedence, in order for government to use these grounds for buildings that provide social amenities like hospitals and social centres to the public. I believe old buildings should be given precedence over modern development.

 

 

First, old buildings in different cities help preserve history and cultures for future generation. In the present digitalized world where life moves at the speed of light, certain buildings are, in some cases, stores of many historical facts that will help future generations have an insight on past centuries. Buildings like the coliseum and senate of the Roman Empire at the centre of Rome are clear examples of the historical content of old buildings. Apart from reading history books on the Roman Empire, students can visit such buildings to reinforce their knowledge on how early Romans were the earliest proponents of democracy and how they created ‘fun games’ at the coliseum. Old buildings preserve human history.

 

 

Furthermore, such buildings are source of tourist attraction. Pulling down old buildings in favour of modern ones could have a negative impact on tourist activities.  Some tourist hotspots are home to buildings that may be the driving force of influx of tourists into these cities; thus, modernization could stymie such activities. For instance, in Paris there is the nostra dames cathedral that draws certain individuals to the city, even though it is home to the Eiffel Tower; also, the Coliseum is a major tourist attraction in Rome. I imagine pulling down such structures could reduce the myriad of tourism seekers that visit these cities. Therefore, modernisation could be bad for business.

 

 

Opponents against my position aver that old buildings should be pulled down, so that social amenities like health centres and schools can be built in communities with old buildings.  I oppose such thoughts and believe government should look for better means of solving these problems and such solutions should not be at the expense of old structures.

 

 

In conclusion, old buildings should be given precedence over modern ones. Examples like the Coliseum and nostra dames buildings are custodians of historical knowledge that could benefit future generations. Instead of breaking them down, governments should help to preserve and renovate these buildings, so they can withstand the test of time and provide more historical knowledge and revenue for the nation.

[dicapino]

Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.

 

Should public funds be used to subsidize artworks when significant numbers of the population are in abject poverty? While some persons would describe government using of taxpayer's money on sectors that will not provide jobs as profligate, others aver that public funding of the arts is germane to the overall well-being of the nation. I believe that government should not stop the funding of the arts just because of impecunious situation of its citizens.

 

 

Government funding of the arts helps to exhort and attract creative minds to the arts. Many persons are scared of taking up careers as writers, painters and sculptors, as they feel it may be difficult for them to raise income and live comfortable lives in the future. But with government funding it would be easy to train to become an artist and this would create more improvement in the art sector of a nation. Also, the nation will be able to produce artists of international repute that will bring adulation to both themselves and the nation. For instance, Wole Soyinka and Chinua Achebe are Nigerian authors, the former won a Nobel Prize, while the latter got a Booker Prize. They both were sponsored by the government early in their career, there are many more like them.

 

 

Furthermore, government subsidizing the art is also important to the general wellbeing of the nation. It provides an opportunity for citizens to experience the abstractness and imaginative effect these art works exude; it would also provide a means of relaxation for the populace. This affects the well being of the nation positively, as individuals are enlightened about what the arts are about. For instance, the Mona Lisa, the lady with the hidden smile, has been said to have a relaxing effects on persons.

 

 

Proponents against my views argue the it is inhumane for public funds to be use the arts when there are no jobs, there is even the saying ' can art put food on my table' ; but the opposite is the case in some situations as funding of arts help provide jobs for citizens of communities that host these art works. For example, in Brazil, the government in collaboration of the steel magnate, Bernado Paz, recently commissioned an art haven called Inhotim in the Brazilian hinterland, it has created job opportunities for the host communities, from curators at the establishment to travel guides at the local airports. This I believe has assuaged the situation of the citizens.

 

 

In conclusion, government should continue to subsidize art work, so as to encourage our younger generation to have a predilection towards it and provide a means of relaxation and enlightenment. The arts help to preserve national cultures and traditions and all these would be lost if adequate funds are not provided to sustain it.