Writing for Academic Discussion Is it justifiable to allocate public funds for the arts when there are people in need? - revised -

Writing Topic: Do you think it is justifiable to allocate public funds for the arts when basic needs like food and shelter remain unmet?  (public policy)

 

 

☆Let’s Think

In what ways do the arts contribute to society?

 

For reference:

・  Around 830 million people were suffering from chronic hunger in 2022. The number of people who suffer from temporary hunger is much larger. They are vulnerable to such factors as war, climate change, disasters, and economic downturns. According to the UN, one child dies due to poverty every six seconds.

・  “Art has always been a powerful weapon of the oppressed — Philosopher Viktor Frankl honed his theory that our primary motivation for living as humans is to find meaning while imprisoned in Dachau and other concentration camps for being Jewish. Oscar Wilde wrote “De Profundis” while imprisoned in England for the crime of loving a man. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” while imprisoned for protesting against racist segregation. There is no better means of cultivating understanding and empathy than through art. And for me, there’s no better outlet to convey truth and inspire resistance than the art of the moving image.

 

I believe that one great movie can change the world.”

“From the Rubble Rise 22 Powerful Voices” by Michael Moore at michaelmoore.com

 

 

☆Hints for Points

Unjustifiable

・  Public resources are to support the most vulnerable. Helping the poor should be prioritized. It is unfair to support those who have enough money to enjoy arts at the expense of those who live on subsistence.

・  It is unacceptable to use resources to support the arts, which we do not necessarily need to survive.

・  The root cause of poverty is violence like wars and conflicts, and the rich world is complicit in them. It is just hypocritical to be immersed in the arts while not working to solve the problem.

・  Although the arts contribute to making a difference in the long run, people in dire situations have no leeway to care for art, and when we know there are such people, it is natural for us to act the same. We must support them as if we were in their situations.

 

Justifiable

・  People need art especially in hardship as art heals our souls and give us hope and power to live.

・  Creating and enjoying the arts are not simply activities in leisure times, but rather fundamental behavior necessary to live as a human being.

・  Prohibiting the arts as corrupt hobby of the wealthy in revolutions led to withering the power of the entire society. This shows that arts are indispensable in people’s lives whether they are starving or not.

・  Society is complex, and an either-or choice cannot be applied to allocation of public funds for humanitarian aid and the art. Stopping artistic activities won’t save children suffering from starvation, cold, or bombing. We should both create art and take actions.

・  Art is used for public education. Many novels and movies, for example, take up or reflect social problems such as depravity of the underclass. They motivate people to work for the disadvantaged.

 

 

☆Sample Answer

【Thesis】Although I enjoy the arts, especially music and movies, I would like to play the devil’s advocate and insist that humanity is lost if art is prioritized at the expense of the indigent. We must not forget about our brothers and sisters suffering from abject poverty.

【Supporting Details】Hundreds of millions of people are starving around the world. Not only disasters and diseases but also conflicts as well as corrupt systems like capitalism make the most vulnerable people like women, children, old people, and handicapped people live without food, clothing, and shelter. When they have some money, they would definitely use it for food, not for the arts. Thus, government resources should be allocated primarily to save them. We are the same humans no matter where we are. Those who are starving are us, and we must put their lives before our art appreciation.

【Counterargument-treatment】I understand that people do not just live to eat and that the arts rescue souls. However, this weighs differently depending on who we are talking about. Parents in war zones managing to play movies for children for their mental health or disturbed people in ghetto seeking solace in music is one thing, while comparatively wealthy people in safe zones talking about budget allocation for the arts is another. We the privileged in safe and rich world have noblesse oblige, the obligation of the advantaged, to provide help for those who are disadvantaged.

【Conclusion】It is meaningless when an art is created turning a blind eye to the predicament of other humans, no matter how beautiful, powerful, or impressive it is. Why don’t we first stop exploitation that deprives hundreds of millions of people of their basic human rights, and then enjoy art after becoming off the hook? (289 words) 

Write your response in 10 minutes. Show each other your responses. Write down questions or suggestions to each other’s response.

 

 

                                                   DRAFT