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

Should government suspend funding for the arts if a great number of country's dwellers faced hardships: hunger and unemployment? Although many of us concur with this policy, perhaps, because we believe that elected officials must ensure our well-being, I disagree with the issue because the amount of money which are distributed to the arts may be insignificant, moreover, even if the amount was big, the policy does not address the cause of the problem and thus it will not bring expected results but instead it will undermine the arts and even threat their existence

To begin with, the proposed policy assumes that an amount of money allotted to the arts is significant; otherwise the policy will not bring expected result - alleviation of hardships of polity’s citizens. At the same time, statistically governments world-widely spend only a negligible proportion of states' budgets for supporting the arts. For instance, Russia Federation has planned to spend less than 0,5 per cent of its 2016 budget on the arts, a similar situation we may see in many other countries from France to the United States. In other words, due to likeliness that amount of money which is devoted to the arts is insignificant the proposed policy is unreasonable.

Secondly, even if we assume that amount of money allotted by government for the arts is significant, the policy is still unreasonable because an actual reason which leads to the stated problems - high rate of unemployment and starvation of population will not be addressed by it. Perhaps, a corrupt and inefficient government causes the nation's hardships and redistribution of the money devoted to the arts will not tackle the root of the problem, these money may be stolen or wasted meaninglessly. Consequently, because a nation's problems such as famine and rampant rate of unemployment will not be addressed by the policy its realization is highly questionable.

Finally, the implementation of the policy will inescapably hurt the arts, which, in my opinion, should be rather supported than deprived of money. The arts, in all their diversity and variety are indispensable part of our culture which allows us to look at the beauty via artists’ works. What is more, the arts may be extremely helpful in time of problems. For example, during the Second World War, when the USSR was under the threat of defeating by Nazi Germany poets, artists, painters worked hard to support Russian people in moment of the great stress, many of people who served in military structures as well as civilians noted that inspiration given them by artists helped them to survive and fight. In other words, the arts have a great impact on us and perhaps, even in case of great hardships, it is unreasonable to cease arts' funding’s and deprived people of them.

In conclusion, at the first glaze we may agree with the issue that it is appropriate to suspend government's funding for the arts when a nation faces a grave hardships but more thoughtful gaze reveals that this policy might not solve or alleviate the problem but instead may worsen the situation by depriving citizens of the arts and hopes which the arts give them.