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

The speaker asserts that the countries should discontinue government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. From my perspective, the statement raises valid points, while it is too extreme because the art industry is also significant and may be conducive to the alleviation of the starvation or unemployment in some aspects.

For starters, we shall admit that it may be proper for the nations, especially the impoverished countries, to suspend the financial support to the arts when the starvation and unemployment is extremely severe throughout the country. Because the physiological needs is the basis of people’s lives. For example, in the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the physiological needs like eating and drinking water is at the bottom. Without these basic needs being satisfied, we are not likely to realize the higher ones, such as the belonging and esteem. Moreover, if the government arbitrarily allocates numerous funds to the arts while leaving the problem of starvation and unemployment unresolved, it may engender the resistance from the citizens and even turbulence throughout the whole country. Therefore, some nations should primly focus on tackling the severe hungry or unemployment rather than patronize the arts.

However, never can we take the statement to the extreme. Sometimes the nations do not need to entirely suspend the government funds for the arts. Instead, they can allocate some funds to the arts circumstantially because the art industry may be conducive to the development of economy. For instance, Bollywood, the biggest film confirm in India, creates dramatic profits every year and dominates the economic system in India. It pays numerous taxes annually, which can be used to the improvement of infrastructure, such as the schools and hospitals as well as food supply. In America, a country famous for its blockbuster movies like the Avengers and Avatar, the contribution of the art industry to the whole GDP is almost 5%, which means that it brings about enormous financial benefits and a myriad of job opportunities. Therefore, considering that it is beneficial to stimulate the economic and deal with the starvation and joblessness, discontinuing the subsidy to the art industry may aggravate these problems.

In addition, the arts have a myriad of benefits other than stimulating economic. First, the arts can stimulate psychological needs which also need to be satisfied as shown in the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. For example, during the wartime in China, the government patronized the song named Match of the Volunteers, which gave the citizens hope and dramatically assuaged people during that period. Secondly, the patronage to the arts may motivate the development of many other industries. For instance, if the government decides to establish an art museum, many other industries might be involved in. The surrounding facilities like the public transportation and the restaurants nearby will be built at the same time. Hence, the arts have many unexpectedly benefits, so it is hasty to entirely suspend the government funds to them.

Overall, it might be true that it is proper for the governments to discontinue the endowment to the arts when the hungry and unemployment is quite severe. But for the sake of a long-term development, the arts cannot be neglected on account of its benefits to economics, psychological needs and other industries.