Government Should Invest Money in Arts and Cultural Events IELTS Writing Task 2

Dec 14, 2022

Government Should Invest Money in Arts and Cultural Events IELTS Writing Task 2 consists of three sample answers provided below. The IELTS task requires the candidates to provide a tentative and argumentative answer to the question. The sample answers comprise three parts: Introduction, body, and conclusion. The introduction is a brief description of the topic. The body contains argumentative statements and tentative answers to support the test-taker's perspective. Further, the conclusion in this IELTS writing topic provides a meaningful closure to the write-up that will help with good IELTS writing score.
IELTS writing task 2 evaluates candidates based on the knowledge and views they have expressed. The areas that candidates are assessed on are grammar, vocabulary, and style. IELTS writing score is marked based on band scores. The band scores range from 0 to 9. Since the topics are very diverse, candidates must go through IELTS Writing practice papers to become familiar with a lot of topics.

Check: Get 10 Free IELTS Sample Papers
Check: Register for IELTS Coaching - Join for Free Trial Class Now

Topic: Some people think that the government should invest money in art and cultural events, while others believe that the government should spend money on more important things. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Band 7 IELTS Essay

The state should, in the view of many, pay greater attention to providing financial support for artistic and cultural endeavours. Others, however, contend that it need to invest more money in providing basic services to its people. Both parties' points of view are honourable in and of themselves.

On the one hand, because public monies are owned by the general populace, they must be accessible for all public activities, including those that advance the interests of the general populace, such as the arts and culture. In other words, art and cultural events retain the artistic fervour of individuals who, in the absence of them, would be entangled in concrete jungles governed by capitalistic norms. For instance, several such occasions offer special doors in our brains that aid us in self-reflection, a practise nonexistent in our contemporary hurried life. As a result, by providing funds for these cultural events, the government contributes to the creation of a public good that is necessary for the majority of people.

However, the COVID-19 epidemic has highlighted the importance of a reliable healthcare system. In reality, a nation's ability to combat the epidemic improved in direct proportion to how well-equipped its healthcare system was, given that all of its residents had access to it. Germany, for instance, offers public health insurance similar to what is offered in other EU nations. Despite the fact that the pandemic saw an increase in the illness, few people died from it. Government financing allowed these nations' citizens to live a little better than others that haven't made enough investments in their healthcare systems.

In conclusion, one side of the public feels that money for arts and cultural events should come from the government, while the other half favours spending for vital services like hospitals. Arts and cultural activities provide a release for those who are overburdened and are essential for mental growth. The overall quality of life has been demonstrated to be improved over the long run by investing in healthcare. I concur that access to quality healthcare is crucial, but I also think that since people are not robots, they require art and culture to preserve their humanity.

Band 7.5 IELTS Essay

People from some countries support their government when it funds artistic and cultural initiatives. In contrast to those people, others are against such government spending and support funding of other more serious issues.

People justify spending on artistic and cultural events as they are essential job creation activities for certain groups of people. In other words, if theatres, music, orchestra, plays, and other such cultural events are not thriving, then many people will lose their employment. As a result, governments often have ministries or special departments overlooking the cultural affairs of a particular country. They are tasked with funding certain cultural institutions that do not run on profit but perform the critical function of sustaining employment. Furthermore, many ancillary industries are associated with art and cultural events, which means more employment is at stake. Thus, it becomes crucial for the economy's health that government funds assist art and cultural projects.

However, other different-minded citizens often are against such spending of taxpayers' money and instead want it to be spent on the country's security infrastructure. In their opinion, it is better to spend on the military, and other counter-terrorism outfits gave the emergence of new security challenges with the growth of non-state actors. For example, in the case of India, the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai forced many intellectuals to suggest advanced spending on surveillance and counter-terrorism force like the National Security Guard (NSG). Thus, their demand for enhancing such measures is based on the primacy of safety over cultural affairs.

In conclusion, spending revenue from taxes on art and cultural events is justified on the basis that such activities create employment both directly and indirectly. On the other hand, people often forget that security is of primary importance. The government should prioritize funding of such forces that secure against foreign aggression and non-state actors like terrorists. In my opinion, funding for security purposes of the country is of utmost importance since, without security, lives will be lost, and there will be no one left to do the job even if we create more employment opportunities.

Band 6 IELTS Essay

Art and cultural enthusiasts want more government funding for their projects, while others are against such funding and believe that elected representatives should allocate more funds in different sectors.

On the one hand, artists, poets, writers, musicians want recognition and material benefits from the government. In other words, government funds are a way of legitimising their activities in order to gain public opinion in their favour. For example, if a government recognizes a specific cultural initiative, it does so by funding the same, which in turn creates news and uproar, and the state emerges as the biggest outreach partner. Thus, cultural and artistic entrepreneurs want more financial backing from the government to gain more legitimacy and become famous.

On the other hand, some people want the government to fund more developmental-related projects. The reason behind such wants is the benefit of better connectivity when there are advanced roads, railways, and airports. For example, having numerous airports will drastically reduce flying costs since there will be intense competition with other transport sectors. Therefore, such initiatives can, for this example, develop cheap, fast, and efficient transportation.

In conclusion, people who are enthusiastic about art and cultural events often want the support of finances from elected representatives because it helps them gain public confidence. However, many people are also different since their priorities differ from art and culture and are aligned with developing more transportation facilities to build a better-connected country. I feel, especially for poorer or developing countries, it is crucial to channel funds towards the development of infrastructure first. Since culture and arts cannot exist or thrive without better connectivity, I think the government should listen to the latter group of people and prioritise the transportation sector. Besides, this will not only improve connectivity but also will create much greater employment and an economic boom.

Read More IELTS Writing Related Samples