Some believe that the government should support artists like musicians, painters, and poets, while others argue that this is a misuse of funds.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
While some believe that public funds should be allocated to support artists, including musicians, painters, and poets, others argue that such expenditure is unwarranted and should be directed towards more pressing societal needs. I align with the former view.
On the one hand, there are valid reasons why some oppose government funding for artists. A primary argument is that taxpayers’ money should be prioritised for essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure rather than being spent on artistic pursuits. In times of economic hardship, it may seem frivolous to finance artistic endeavours when citizens struggle with basic needs. Furthermore, the private sector and patrons can provide financial backing for artists, ensuring that only the most talented individuals thrive based on market demand rather than government intervention. Additionally, some contend that subsidising art could lead to mediocrity, as artists might become complacent, relying on state support instead of striving for excellence.
On the other hand, I firmly believe that governmental support for artists yields significant societal and cultural benefits. Art plays a crucial role in preserving cultural heritage, fostering creativity, and enhancing social cohesion. Without adequate funding, many talented artists might abandon their craft due to financial constraints, leading to a decline in cultural expression. Moreover, government investment in the arts stimulates economic growth by creating employment opportunities in creative industries, attracting tourism, and contributing to national identity. For example, countries like France and Italy, known for their thriving arts sectors, reap substantial economic benefits from state-sponsored cultural programs. Lastly, art serves as a powerful medium for addressing social issues, inspiring change, and enriching people's lives in ways that purely commercial industries cannot achieve.
In conclusion, although some argue that public funds should be used solely for essential services and that artists should seek private funding, I believe that government support for the arts is vital. It not only preserves cultural heritage but also fosters creativity, economic development, and social unity, making it a worthwhile investment.
Band 9 Sample Answer
Share This with Fellow IELTS Aspirants!
Insights for Band 9 Score
Uncommon Vocabulary & Phrases
- Unwarranted expenditure (unnecessary spending)
- Pressing societal needs (urgent public concerns)
- Frivolous (wasteful or unnecessary)
- Financial backing (monetary support)
- Cultural expression (artistic representation of a culture)
- Economic hardship (financial struggles)
- State-sponsored (government-funded)
- National identity (a country's cultural uniqueness)
- Social cohesion (unity among people)
Complex Sentences & Advanced Structures
-
Relative Clauses:
- "Without adequate funding, many talented artists who lack financial resources might abandon their craft."
-
Conditional Sentences:
- "If governments fail to support artists, cultural heritage could be lost over time."
-
Passive Voice:
- "Government investment in the arts is often perceived as an unnecessary burden."
-
Subordinating Conjunction:
- "While some argue that art is a luxury, others contend that it is fundamental to a nation’s identity."
By incorporating sophisticated vocabulary, a clear structure, and varied sentence patterns, this essay meets the Band 9 criteria for IELTS Writing.
For one-on-one IELTS coaching, feel free to reach out! 🚀
WhatsApp us now! – Click here!
Share This with Fellow IELTS Aspirants!