Print
Back to list
Art has never lost its unique power to attract people and transport them to a different world. It is argued that government has the responsibility to financially support art though they have so many other important items to invest money in , which I totally agree with.
Evidences shows that arts can bring great benefits to individuals as well as the whole society. First of all, arts, such as music, painting and poems, always nourishes the human civilization. It is an effective approach to alleviating ones stress and shaking off the shadow. Lets take music ,one form of arts for example.A recently study announced to the public finds that music therapy helps more than 70% of earthquake victims in Sichuan overcome adversity and enter upon the reconstruction of their homeland. As far as I am concerned, the development of art serves well for the people, the government and the public, because it calms the angry men down and makes everything done fairer and softly, contributing to the harmony of society.
In addition, art is the main medium of culture. Art bridges the culture gap between different countries or religions. Take the art of Erhu of China as an example, in 1980s when Erhu first appeared on the international stage, this traditional Chinese instrument electrified the audience .Ever since that, western countries have started to learn about the Chinese culture through this art. Hence, the governments support of art will help disseminate cultures and promote commerce with other countries.Therefore, I believe that government has the necessity and obligations to invest money on art.
Admittedly, governments responsibility is not restricted to issue of arts. Obviously, governments investment on art will add to the its financial burden, and may be time-consuming as well. It is known to all that the government has to address the problems of pollution, crimes, employment, etc. Hence too much money distributed to art would break the balance of society and disfunction the governments duty. Even so, it is still worthwhile for government to spare some money for arts.
Evidences shows that arts can bring great benefits to individuals as well as the whole society. First of all, arts, such as music, painting and poems, always nourishes the human civilization. It is an effective approach to alleviating ones stress and shaking off the shadow. Lets take music ,one form of arts for example.A recently study announced to the public finds that music therapy helps more than 70% of earthquake victims in Sichuan overcome adversity and enter upon the reconstruction of their homeland. As far as I am concerned, the development of art serves well for the people, the government and the public, because it calms the angry men down and makes everything done fairer and softly, contributing to the harmony of society.
In addition, art is the main medium of culture. Art bridges the culture gap between different countries or religions. Take the art of Erhu of China as an example, in 1980s when Erhu first appeared on the international stage, this traditional Chinese instrument electrified the audience .Ever since that, western countries have started to learn about the Chinese culture through this art. Hence, the governments support of art will help disseminate cultures and promote commerce with other countries.Therefore, I believe that government has the necessity and obligations to invest money on art.
Admittedly, governments responsibility is not restricted to issue of arts. Obviously, governments investment on art will add to the its financial burden, and may be time-consuming as well. It is known to all that the government has to address the problems of pollution, crimes, employment, etc. Hence too much money distributed to art would break the balance of society and disfunction the governments duty. Even so, it is still worthwhile for government to spare some money for arts.