IELTS Writing Task 2 – Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all kinds
Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all kinds of
artists including painters, musicians and poets, etc. However, other people think
that is a waste of money.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
You should write at least 250 words.
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay Sample
Sample Answer 1:
Many people’s lives are richer because of art – music, paintings, calligraphy, pictures,
sculpture, poems and dance. There are some who claim that it is important to support
the artists, and others who are opposed to government funding. In the following
paragraphs, I shall discuss both sides of the argument and finally give my opinion.
There are many reasons why government should fund artists. The contributions of
artists to the society are very essential. Art can bring out people’s creativity, views and
personalities. For example, we learn about our history, traditions and culture through
movies, songs and paintings made by artists. Artists are the media of diffusing
tradition. All kinds of tradition are the basis of a country without which the country
can’t be civilised. So artists are the ambassadors of culture and play a vital role in
elevating the level of civilization of the country. It is a major form of cultural
abundance.
Another important aspect of this is that art is an ancient means of communication.
Our language is a result of people’s need to communicate. Art is what differentiates us
from animals. Art is our soul and it is a source of courage. Artists also entertain us.
Finally, government should fund artists because earning a livelihood from art is
difficult especially in the budding stages.
Opponents of government funding on artists say that money spent on the arts could
have been used for considerably more vital purposes. They have strong reasons as a
nation’s health and wellbeing should be paramount. The idea that elderly people are
forced to wait for essential operations whilst the money required to increase available
medical provision is spent on opera and ballet is plainly immoral. There are also more
deserving social causes for the money that should be considered before the arts.
Homelessness, unemployment, illiteracy – all of these deserve to be addressed before
money is spent on what is essentially little more than entertainment.
To summarise, I would like to say that as both sides have strong arguments, it depends
on the condition of the country. In developed countries where even the poorest of the
poor have all the basic amenities of life, government should spend on art and artists
but in countries where people are dying of starvation and diseases, other matters
should be given priority.
Model Answer 2:
Concerning the fact whether artists should obtain subsidies there are two opinions. One side thinks that it is a total waist of government money, whilst others say that all art forms should receive financial support including painters, musicians and poets.
Regarding the first point of view, I can agree to a certain kind of level. It is a fact that artists who perform in popular kinds of art, like pop singers or international circus artists, do not really need financial assistance. There will be enough people who come and watch their concerts or go to their shows. In contradiction, artists that perform in more alternitive forms of art, like poetry, new kinds of music forms or painters who have an experimental style, might need financial support in the early stage of their career.
Other people state that all kinds of art forms should receive financial government support without making a difference regarding to the popularity of the art or artist. One can certainly state that it is not proper to give all artists the same form of subsidies. One could financialy assist the artist in the beginning of his career, but once he or she has gained some fame, it is no longer necessary to support that artist and the money can better be spend on a new artist.
In conclusion, it can be said that there are arguments for both opinions. Artists should not be allowed to get government financial assistance througout their career. Nevertheless, for some forms of art it can be granted in the beginning, so they have the possibility to get their art form known to the public.
Sample Answer 3:
People have different views about the funding of creative artists. While some people disagree with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for art projects should come from both governments and other sources.
Some art projects definitely require help from the state. In the UK, there are many works of art in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres. In Liverpool, for example, there are several new statues and sculptures in the docks area of the city, which has been redeveloped recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage and history. They serve to educate people about the city, and act as landmarks or talking points for visitors and tourists. Governments and local councils should pay creative artists to produce this kind of art, because without their funding our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government funding for art. The main reason for this view is that governments have more important concerns. For example, state budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and security, among other areas. These public services are vital for a country to function properly, whereas the work of creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury. Another reason for this opinion is that artists do a job like any other professional, and they should therefore earn their own money by selling their work.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.
Model Answer 4:
Whether the government should provide financial assistance to the country’s artists is an often debated topic. Some people believe that the government should help artists; others think that spending money on artists is akin to wasting the nation’s wealth. In this essay, we will take a look at both sides of the argument before arriving at a conclusion.
Art forms are an integral part of the nation’s cultural heritage. Some people believe that by helping artists the government can help protect the cultural legacy of the country. This argument is true to a certain extent. The advent of films and television has considerably affected the popularity of other art forms. It is a known fact that many ethnic art forms are now dying because of the lack of support. A little financial assistance is all that it takes to protect these art forms from total extinction.
Some people, on the other hand, argue that spending money on arts and artists is wasteful because there are several other sectors that desperately require government funding. For example, in many undeveloped and developing countries millions of people don’t have access to safe drinking water or electricity. Meeting these requirements is far more important than protecting the nation’s art forms from extinction.
After analyzing both sides of the argument, it is felt that government assistance to artists is justifiable only in countries that have successfully met all basic requirements of its people. In the case of undeveloped nations it makes better sense to spend public money on other pressing needs of the people.
Unemployment is becoming a major problem all over the world. Even in some developed nations, the rate of unemployment is high. This is sometimes attributed to the financial recession that gripped the world during the first decade of this century. While the situation improved considerably over the last few years, a lot of people who had been laid off by their previous employers are still out of work. Some people feel that the government should give them weekly financial allowances. I don’t think that this is a viable solution.
To start with, if governments were to provide financial assistance to every unemployed person, they would have little money to run the country. Most nations already have several welfare schemes for the jobless and the governments certainly offer some financial assistance through these schemes. Of course, these nominal financial aids are unlikely to solve the financial woes of the jobless. I won’t blame the governments for these because there is a limit to the amount of money they can spend.
In most cases unemployment is the result of the lack of skills. People who possess skills that the industry demands will have no difficulty finding jobs. Yes, the recession wiped away many jobs. However, there are still several sectors that need skilled manpower. Instead of doling out financial assistance to jobless people, the government should run free training programs and camps where the jobless can pick up skills. This will provide a lasting solution to this problem.
The government should also create awareness about the dignity of labour. The unemployment rates in India are high. This is not really caused by the dearth of job. Rather it is a result of misplaced notions of dignity. The educated middle class Indians will only accept white collar jobs. If the jobless take up manual jobs, the nation will become much more prosperous.
To conclude, giving weekly financial assistance to the jobless will not increase the GDP of a nation. It is never a solution. Instead of giving people money, the government should provide free training that will increase their employ-ability.
Model answer 6:
Although Proficient creators like musicians and painters are the assets of our society, whether they should be given sufficient fiscal support by their own authorities has triggered spirited debates. Some assert that government is obliged to generate money for their skilfulness, whereas others contend that alternative ways are to be taken into account. In my perspective, the latter should be considered highly, for they provide clear cut advantages.
The idea is that government must lend a helping hand to its artists does have a handful benefits. One reason why people propose this is that artists could easily collect reasonable income to bring forth remarkable creations. The perceived general idea is that this readily available fund would encourage the talents to bring out the best in them, which, in turn, enhances remarkable achievements not only to the artists but also to the government. Nevertheless, it is highly likely that, if they get necessary resources as easily as ABC, they would develop laziness and this draw back retard the overall cultural promotion and improvement of their nation.
However, the counter arguments of supporting talents financially seem more likely to be effective rationally than the former. This is partly because people who work hard to earn money for their creative works will definitely value their job and thereby they strive tirelessly to achieve their dreams. They will, for example, estimate the needed costs and use it adequately. It is also relevant that artists can do further alterations in their creations as they are not bound to any rules and regulations, and they can clearly do whatever they want for better accomplishments. Moreover each and every authority is mandated to rather consider other big issues, which is chiefly important to protect its public.
To put it in a nutshell, while getting promoted economically by government is supportive, I believe, other options such as private funds are to be chosen, in addition government budget, it would be argued, could be allocated for other necessary purposes.
Model answer 7:
It is unquestionable that one very complex issue in today’s world is the funding support to creative artist. While there is a controversy that should be support and funded by government. I do believe that there is also a case for saying that they should funded by alternative sources.
It is fairly easy to understand the reason why government support is vital to artists and their projects. Perhaps by considering that proportion of artists are living in poverty. In fact, only few artists, who has achieved success in their fields, are able to support themselves, whereas others are still struggling for life and some of them even living below the poverty line. Likewise, the construction of a non-profitable art gallery, which helps the public to develop a sense of art, requires vast sums of money. Therefore, without financial funding by government, our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.
However, we can fairly understand that artists should no emphasis on the state to fund their work. While most musicians and the majority of painters make a living by performing or selling their artistic creations to fans or collectors. Besides, as to painters or musicians, they can expect to gain their income as tutors giving individuals lessons. In short, these artists are capable of gaining financial support in a number of ways.
In conclusion, I believe that there are good reasons why artists should not only rely on the government for supporting them, but the alternative sources of financial support should be suggested.
Model answer 8:
More and more artists are naturally born since the dawn of time. As a result, it has been the subject of discussion on whether the state or a non-government institution should support them financially. These points of view will be discussed in this order.
It is believed by some that the country’s administration should finance the creative artists. For instance, under President Ferdinand E. Marcos regime, all of our skilfully Filipino creating arts were provided all they need. Like Fernando Amorsolo, one of the most famous painters in the Philippines was funded by late President Marcos and even his first exhibition held in the National Museum of the country. Thus, he was known by visitors who came and saw his creations internationally, and this led him to exhibit his paintings in different countries. He made our country known around the world and he is indeed a Filipino pride.
On the other hand, many argue that NGOs (Non-government Organisations) should be the one financing them. An idea that may support this is that, the government has a lot of funding already and they cannot afford to finance these creators of arts, so it is better to ask for a help to a private institutions. For example, the Pro-mil Milk Company has funded the concert of Sarah Geronimo in Araneta Coliseum. She is the most popular singer in the Philippines because she sings magnificently and can touch our deepest emotions. In fact this private company can make a lot of profit in her concert.
In conclusion, for reasons related to the Philippine pride and private institution making of profit when financing arts creators is supported and refuted by many. However, after analyzing these two points of view, it is clear that the Philippine government should finance them. Thus, the argument that the state should financially support creative artists can be supported and expected to be realized.
Model answer 9:
A group of people believe that governments should provide subsidy for unpopular or amateur artists, while other people think that artistic people should be subsidized from another resource. The following essay will discuss about both opinions, but in my personal opinion I believe that governments should fund them before they are sponsored by alternative sources.
Several people believe that creative artist such as street painters and musicians should not be subsidized by the governments. They think that art activities are not the basic need of human beings, and governments should focus on more important matters. For example, rather than spending some budget for these street artists, the fund could be allocated for improving the public education sectors, public transportations or public facilities. They think that creative artist should seek sponsorship from private institutions or private companies.
For several reasons, some people believe that creative artist should be funded by governments. Firstly, many amateur painters have painted some of the public areas, and they have changed the look and the atmosphere of these places from a negative aura into a positive one. Secondly, some talented artists have made artistic sculptures and placed them on public areas such as in parks, and they have made the parks become more beautiful and attractive. Thirdly, many amateur musicians who are performing in public areas, such as in subways or in bus terminals have entertained the public with their music. Therefore, it is undeniable that the existence of these artists brings benefits for the society and governments should subsidize them.
In conclusion, people have different opinion about funding creative artists. Some people think that they should be funded by governments, while others believe that they should be subsidized by other resources. In my point of view, I think governments should allocate some budget for amateur artists as they bring benefits for individuals and communities, but once they have become professional, they should seek sponsorship from other resources, and government should stop the subsidy.
Submit your Essay here in the comment section, we will add your essay in our post.
(Collected, Source – Book, Internet)
