ISSUE190

TOPIC: ISSUE190 - "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
WORDS: 588 TIME: 01:02:52 DATE: 2008-3-19 14:56:41

The speaker claims that basic needs of the masses are much more paramount than the development of the arts, and that government should accentuate the former instead of the latter. However, in my view unemployment, poor family circumstances, and starvation exist throughout human history, despite how high the proportion of budget is spent in improving standard of living. Therefore, I tend to disagree with what the arguer says and insist that using public resources to support the arts is imperative.

To begin with, generally speaking the arts include three mainstream realms, which are music, painting and dancing. All these categories of arts play a pivotal role in human's daily life and most politicians in history and contemporary support the arts through not only words but also deeds. For instance, music can serve to eliminate tension and express emotion from one's heart and mind. In the past eras, political leaders hired a myriad of musicians, so that these officers would ease their tired bodies and minds under the "treatment" of music when they were free from various matters after work. Therefore, members of a government would have a good sleep before they went on tackling sociopolitical events next day. Besides, the efficiency would be highly ameliorated and more basic needs of the masses would be satisfied. In short, music can indeed serve to solve certain public problems indirectly.

Furthermore, paintings can record characteristics of a society, and these records are quite useful to descendants, which is much more critical than demands of ordinary folks. For example, our ancestors recorded their experiences through a method of painting on a board or paper, which are precious fortune for the masses today. Shizhen Li, a prominent medical in Chinese history, drew every raw material that he had detailed researched on paper. Therefore his apprentices did not have to repeat what Li had discovered and could make even greater attainments upon the foundation of Li's contributions. Eventually paintings of Li and his descendants are involved various medical materials that are extensively applied to physic patients today. In conclusion, investing on paintings will ultimately benefit the masses.

When it comes to dancing, the speaker's claim finds less support from historical record. In older times, people had nothing to do after they had meals. Gradually, folks began to play specific games around a pile of fractured wood which were lighted on fire. Populace could express their ideas and emotions through playing games. Then they restricted what kind of action was graceful and every one would have to obey this confine. Ultimately, the dancing of art was invented. Dancing indeed can profit the masses; therefore it is worthwhile to support both labors and funds to dancing. In contemporary, government's fundraising to movies is also evidence that art is indispensable. Albeit several sociopolitical problems are easy to find, such as scandals, water-pollution, and unemployment, movies are playing a more and more vital role in changing these problems aforementioned. Artists express their wills of living a better life through scenarios in films which are available all over the world. For example, The Truth which aims to arouse public attention to natural environment has successfully gained certain effects. Most people today are more concerned with our earth than ever before, which profit both contemporaries and descendants.

In summary, the arts are dispensable in societal life. Arts appreciation can reveal special issues to political leaders that would otherwise be ignored. Therefore standard of living will be gradually improved. In final analysis, then, I tend to disagree with the speaker's claim.