Task2 - Infrastructure >> The Arts Versus Infrastructure

"The Arts Versus Infrastructure"

Some people believe that governments should spend money on the arts. Others assert that this money should be used to improve public services and infrastructure.

Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

In contemporary societies, there is a bitter controversy about whether governments should spend money on the arts or on infrastructure and public services. Although both sides have their own logic, in my opinion, this debate is avoidable as we can satisfy both desires.

Firstly, the arts are an important part of our lives that unwind our souls and inspire our creative ideals. While our work can be repetitive, which make us passive and lose our sense of creativity, the arts are charming, gorgeous and unique. Therefore, they have the ability to relax us and change our working environment. As a consequence, we are able to work effectively and be totally destressed. If you work in a monocolor office, with simple partitioned desks, you will be depressed and you will not be energized. A harmonious combination of colors in an office will make office workers comfortable at work. So, it is essential to have arts in our lives.

From another point of view, public services and infrastructure are essential requirements that must be paid for. A country can not develop without infrastructure advances. For example, living conditions cannot be raised without the improvement of services. Improved basic infrastructure such as transport systems encourage exchange between areas and enhance investment from foreign countries. As a result, the country will become more wealthy and more modern. Education gives employment opportunities to people, and the health care system helps us to live healthier lives.

However, it costs an arm and a leg to develop the arts, services and basic infrastructures individually. Governments have a moral obligation to mix them together. There are plenty of effective ways to do this. Plant trees of an extraordinary shape on streets or build unique buildings instead of simple apartments. These are obvious solutions. The Opera House in Sydney or Petronas Towers are examples. They are not only breathtaking but also convenient and very useful. They are a perfect fusion of art and architecture.

In conclusion, it can be said that money needs to be used wisely. Accordingly, a blend of the artistic with fundamental needs is a solution which not only fulfills both sides of the debate but also saves lots of money.

Comment from ITP

A good essay with great examples to support your opinion. I like your solution which is a compromise between both sides of the argument. There is some great argumentative language in this essay- "bitter controversy", "this debate is avoidable", "from another point of view"