It is definitely true that investing in arts would bring more glory to the particular country but it should not to be forgot that being safe should be the primary concern.

This world has already seen two wars and after that no country wouldn't be taking risk of not developing their military or not investing in defense sector. It is kind of an anecdote but true that to protect artist, they would be seeing military help.

Investing more in arts could have been true in a sense when no country is investing in military anymore and all the nation are at same level. But that is not the case in present and never that would be in near future. For example only 8 countries has got nuclear weapons in the entire world now unless almost all capable countries couldn't develop their own nuclear weapon they won't be happy. But the time when this equilibrium should arrive, countries like US would start investing more in other type of weapon which are technologically great. And again every country would start racing for that. So being in an equilibrium state in military is a myth and every country would have to invest in this.

On the contrary investing in military is tougher than investing in arts in sense of financial condition. Arts doesn't require that much of financial support as much as military do. Military requires a lot of money to be invested in buying the weapons, doing research for developing own weapons but arts doesn't require that much of money to be invested. So there is not point of investing as much in arts as military. That implies if any country is capable enough to invest in military successfully that could easily fund to promote arts of the country.

What I believe in true sense is military requires to be funded great by the government but arts doesn't require that instead arts should be promoted in every part of the society. It might require a little fund to promote these type of things but again that would be very small as compared to military fund. After when their paintings, music etc become famous around the world, the small amount of money which was invested, they would be bringing that money to India anyway.

At last a government's primary concern should be of investing money in the military but on the same page a small amount (1 or 2% of military) of fund should be given to arts to promote that.

Can someone please give an opinion about my essay? Thank you


It is hard to agree about what areas and sectors should governments invest their resources on. Many would say that is important to invest in research in this era of technology. Others might say that the first priority of the governments should be to provide good healthcare services. The author of the text claims that the government should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military. I would disagree with the recommendation made by the author. Although it is true that this kind of dilemma is always dependent on the social and economical environment, investing in military must always be a top priority over the years.

As I said before, when claiming if the governments should invest their resources on arts or on military, one should always bear in mind the specific social and economical circumstances of that specific time period. What was valid and true yesterday might not be today. Having said that, it is hard to imagine a time when investing in military was not a top priority. Whether it was because we were at war or because the danger of being at war was great, most governments around the world have always investing much of their resources in military.

If we consider the time we live in, we probably would agree that military is a top priority. The dangers posed by terrorism are enormous, and countries must protect their citizens. In addition, global warming might become also a national security issue, with countries fighting for the possession of vital resources, such as water. Is it investing in art as important as investing in military? I do not agree with it. To tackle the most important challenges that we face today and will face in future, countries will need to maintain or develop a good national security system.

It is absolutely true that arts have the power to shape and define the culture and the society of a country. When watching the movie "The Monuments Men", one will be overwhelmed by how important it was to avoid the destruction of certain artistic masterpieces, for the revival of the countries after the second World War. Nevertheless, arts is something that can be run and supported more easily by private agents. Arts can be a very profitable business, and therefore more people will be willing to invest in it. On the other hand, not many people will be interested in investing in military as the financial returns are small.

To sum up, although arts can have a very strong impact on society, I do not agree with the statement that governments should invest as much in arts as they do in the military. Firstly, countries will require a good military in order to tackle the most proeminent challenges that they face. Secondly, as few people are willing to invest in military, as it is not a very profitable business, the governments should step up and provide national security services.

Art is a cultural heritage of a country, that must be protected and encouraged in order to revere our past generations and to sustain it for future generations to cherish the cultural uniqueness. Art comes in many forms dance,monuments, paintings,music as well as language.Whereas Military is entirely different responsibility of a country,infact sustenance of art is also ensured by military.So author's take to funding art as military doesn't make a cogent case,rather this statement is rife with flaws and bad comparison.

One of the major disconnect the author makes here is comparison of funds to military and arts.Funding of military is large and mostly capital machinery(guns,ship and planes) and salaries to servicemen.Typical budget of military is several hundred billion dollars where as Funding of arts cannot be equated to military's.Moreover,Why huge funding is required for Arts? Restoration activities,programs to encourage classical dance and music , and languages only requires small fraction of funding

Also,The funding of arts and military is country specific and highly conditional.So , we cannot generalize this to every country.Imagine a developing country fraught with insurgency, in this case with limited resouces the need of the hour would be to safeguard the nation from external ans well as internal threats.

Having said that, I am not suggesting that Art should not be funded, its our cultural heritage and must be looked after.Sustenance of arts in any country doesn't merely needs funds from government but encouragement and support programs where new generation is inspired to learn arts. In fact we have numerous artists who made it big on all arenas of arts be it painting,classical music,theaters , classical dances etc.Therefore Government should formulate dedicated institution to monitor and inspire the growth of arts in the country apart from merely funding it.

It is good however not fully address the issue. https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/greprepcl ... -3426.html

See here for strategy