Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning f

Art is a way for an individual to express his opinions and feelings but apart from this definition, art also refers to the skill of men specialised in creating things of aesthetic value. And to view art only as a luxury is wrong. Because art can certainly lead to commerce and help individuals earn money and thus feed their families.

A nation should always work for the welfare of its citizens and the their upliftment. A nation whose significant number of citizens are hungry and unemployed should focus more on developing schemes that help tackle these problems. Therefore, it is wise on part of such a nation to spend majority of its funds on applying the measures to tackle the problem of unemployment and hunger. As such art does not feed the citizens of a country but suspending fundings on all art forms is not a wise decision. For example, If a nation is known for its handlooms and special textiles, which have a great demand and value in international market, should not suspend funding for its textile industry.Instead, in such cases, a nation should encourage more people to pursue this art form and provide more funding for the art made by handloom workers. Because, as more people get engaged in this art form the output from textile industries augments and as a result more influx of foreign currency starts when this art sold in international market. Hence, this in turn bolsters the country’s economy and simultaneously solves the problem of unemployment and hunger.

In some cases, though funding in art may not essentially help increase in exports and influx of foreign currency, but it may help other connected industries to create more job opportunities. For example, funding to develop the aesthetics of a public park may help in creating more jobs for artists and architects, who in turn will employ more people under them and thus help tackle unemployment. Such actions can help tackle unemployment immediately without any delay, which is better because the measures taken by a nation to improve its economy are generally long-term and time consuming.

Some people may argue that a government should focus all its fundings towards strengthening the economy and also towards the industrialisation. But they forget to acknowledge that though industrialisation is necessary and important it should be done gradually because it leads to more unemployment as machines take over the jobs of men.

Hence, in conclusion, though a nation should primordially focus on sustainable and stable economic measures to tackle hunger and unemployment, it should not completely suspend its funding for arts. As arts can definitely lead to commerce and also can help create more jobs in fields attached to it. Also, while economic measures take long time to be effective, funding for arts can actually help tackle serious problems more effectively and immediately.