IELTS/TOEFL Speaking and Writing Vocabulary: Supporting Artists
IELTS and TOEFL Speaking and Writing Vocabulary: Supporting Artists
In this video, we’ll help you answer the IELTS & TOEFL writing task question:
Some believe that the government should support artists like musicians, painters, and poets, while others argue that this is a misuse of funds. Discuss both views and give your own opinion
We have provided 2 example answers. You’ll also learn advanced vocabulary and pronunciation to help you improve your speaking and writing, boosting your exam scores for either the writing or speaking tasks. Plus, we have added some topic suggestions.
Key Highlights:
Structuring agreeing and opposing responses
Useful vocabulary and pronunciation
Topic suggestions for exam preparation.
Download the PDF: For the full transcript of this video, including a complete advanced vocabulary list with definitions and topic suggestions click the link below.
Here is the full transcript of the video:
Some believe that the government should support artists like musicians, painters, and poets, while others argue that this is a misuse of funds. Discuss both views and give your own opinion
Advanced vocabulary in bold and advanced verbs in italics:
Response 1: Agreeing with Government Support for Artists
Art is an integral part of society, shaping cultural identity and enriching the lives of individuals. Some argue that public funds should not be allocated to artistic expression, as other sectors, such as healthcare and education, demand more attention. However, I firmly believe that government funding for artists is justified, as it fosters creativity, preserves national heritage, and contributes to economic growth.
Firstly, the arts play a crucial role in cultural preservation. Many civilisations throughout history have been defined by their artistic contributions, and without government intervention, much of this would be lost. By investing in cultural initiatives, the state ensures that artists can continue their work without financial struggles. Additionally, state-sponsored art projects promote a sense of national identity, bringing communities together through shared traditions and values.
Moreover, the arts have a significant economic impact. The creative industry generates employment opportunities and stimulates tourism, which in turn benefits local businesses. Many cities worldwide have flourished as cultural hubs due to their investment in the arts. By allocating funds to artists, governments contribute to a thriving economy, demonstrating that public support for the arts is not a misuse of resources but rather a strategic investment.
Critics may argue that public funds should be prioritised for essential services. However, a balanced approach can be implemented, where a reasonable proportion of the budget is designated for the arts without neglecting vital sectors. Furthermore, philanthropic contributions and privately funded initiatives can complement government support, ensuring a sustainable model for artistic growth.
In conclusion, artistic expression is not merely a luxury but a fundamental component of a progressive society. By supporting artists, governments preserve cultural heritage, boost economic development, and enhance social unity. Therefore, public funding for the arts should be seen as an investment rather than a burden.
Response 2: Disagreeing with Government Support for Artists
Some believe that government funding for artists is a necessity, arguing that the arts are vital for cultural and economic development. However, I hold the view that public funds should be allocated to more pressing priorities, such as healthcare, infrastructure, and education. While art holds intrinsic value, its sustainability should primarily depend on market-driven approaches and private sponsorship rather than state intervention.
Firstly, public expenditure should be directed towards essential services. Many countries face crises in healthcare and education, and diverting funds to artistic projects may undermine the well-being of citizens. The arts, unlike hospitals or schools, are not critical necessities, and artists have alternative means of securing financial backing, such as commercial viability and private patrons. Governments must prioritise the public welfare by focusing on areas that directly impact quality of life.
Additionally, the concept of state-sponsored art raises concerns about fairness and subjectivity. Deciding which artists receive funding is often arbitrary, and such decisions can be influenced by personal biases rather than meritocracy. A market-driven approach would ensure that only artists whose work is commercially viable receive financial backing. Furthermore, with the proliferation of digital platforms, artists today have numerous avenues for generating income without relying on government assistance.
Supporters of government-funded art may argue that it preserves cultural heritage and enriches society. However, history has shown that art flourishes even without state intervention. The Renaissance period, for example, was primarily driven by philanthropy rather than public financing. Instead of subsidising artists, governments should invest in education initiatives that equip individuals with the tools to pursue careers in the arts independently.
In conclusion, while the arts are undeniably valuable, they should not be prioritised over fundamental public needs. By redirecting funds toward essential services and encouraging private investment, societies can still support artistic endeavours without burdening taxpayers. A self-sustaining creative industry is both feasible and preferable
#IELTS #TOEFL #IELTSSpeaking #IELTSWriting #TOEFLSpeaking #TOEFLWriting #EnglishVocabulary #LearnEnglish #AdvancedVocabulary #IELTSPreparation #TOEFLPreparation
