Scribd
Upload
72 views2 pages

Advocating Public Arts Funding

The document discusses whether governments should allocate public funds to support the arts. It argues that investing in the arts is a wise use of taxpayer money for several reasons. First, the arts play an important role in creating a vibrant society by providing expression and creativity. They can also boost local economies through tourism. Second, art programs in schools can improve academic performance and develop skills that benefit the workforce. Additionally, supporting the arts can improve mental health and create jobs. The document notes that funding for the arts is typically a small portion of government budgets and can come from other sources as well. It concludes that while governments have many priorities, promoting the arts provides benefits and should receive public funds.

Uploaded by

Đồng Mộc Tuyết DiaVic
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views2 pages

Advocating Public Arts Funding

The document discusses whether governments should allocate public funds to support the arts. It argues that investing in the arts is a wise use of taxpayer money for several reasons. First, the arts play an important role in creating a vibrant society by providing expression and creativity. They can also boost local economies through tourism. Second, art programs in schools can improve academic performance and develop skills that benefit the workforce. Additionally, supporting the arts can improve mental health and create jobs. The document notes that funding for the arts is typically a small portion of government budgets and can come from other sources as well. It concludes that while governments have many priorities, promoting the arts provides benefits and should receive public funds.

Uploaded by

Đồng Mộc Tuyết DiaVic
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Governments are responsible for providing their citizens with basic services such

as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Some people, however, question


whether public funds should be allocated to support the artworks, like paintings
and sculptures, when there are other pressing needs. Although it is true that there
are many competing priorities for public spending, I strongly believe investing in
the arts is a wise and necessary use of taxpayers' money.

Firstly, the arts play an important role in a vibrant and healthy society. They
provide a means of self-expression, encourage creativity, and contribute to a
community's identity. Public art installations can also attract tourism, generate
economic activity, and boost the local financial system. Secondly, putting money
into the arts can lead to positive long-term effects on a community. Art programs
in schools, for example, can improve academic performance, enhance critical
thinking skills, and foster cultural awareness. The workforce can greatly benefit
from these skills and qualities, bringing about a more educated and productive
society.

Furthermore, supporting the arts can also have tangible advantages for individuals
and communities. Art therapy has been shown to be effective in treating a variety
of mental health issues. Besides, public art projects can create jobs and generate
income for artists as well as arts organizations. Finally, it is worth noting that
investing in the arts does not have to come at the expense of other priorities. Public
funding for the arts is typically a small percentage of a government's overall budget
and can be funded through various sources, including private donations also grants.

In conclusion, while it is true that governments have many competing priorities for
public spending, I think it is both judicious and essential to utilize public funds to
promote the arts. The benefits of supporting arts are numerous, ranging from
improving life quality to creating economic opportunities. These advantages can
have gainful long-standing impacts on individuals and communities.

Governments are responsible for providing their citizens with basic services such
as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
I believe investing in the arts is a wise and necessary use of taxpayers' money.
Firstly, the arts play an important role in a vibrant and healthy society.
Secondly, putting money into the arts can lead to positive long-term effects on a
community.
Furthermore, supporting the arts can also have tangible advantages for individuals
and communities.
Besides, public art projects can create jobs and generate income for artists as well
as arts organizations.
Finally, it is worth noting that investing in the arts does not have to come at the
expense of other priorities.
In conclusion, while it is true that governments have many competing priorities for
public spending, I think it is both judicious and essential to utilize public funds to
promote the arts.

The presented bar chart indicates the percentage of individuals in five different age
groups who donated to charity in Britain from 1990 to 2010. Overall, the 18-50 age
group experienced a decline in the number of donors, whereas the other two age
groups had a reverse pattern. Moreover, the 36-50 age bracket had the largest
number of donors in 1990, but by the end of the period the 51-65 age group had
overtaken them to claim the highest percentage.
On the one hand, the 18-25 age group had the lowest percentage of donors at 17%
in 1990. At the same time, the 26-35 and 36-50 groups’ proportion of donors
reached 31% and 42%, respectively. However, in 20 years from then, the 18-25
age group experienced a drop of 10%. The two remaining ranges, 26-35 and 36-50
saw a slightly downward trend to 23% and 34%, in sequence.
On the other hand, there was a mild increase in the portion of donors aged 51 to 65,
from 34% in 1990 to 38% in 2010. In addition, the figure for the percentage of
people aged 65 and above minimally grew from 31% in 1990 to 34% in the next 20
years.

You might also like