# data[].attributes.body
As of late, many people hold a school of thought that national spending should not be used for assisting art and cultural. While others believe doing this may be advantageous to population and culture. This essay will give a general look on both view as well as my personal viewpoint.

On the one hand, there is no doubt that any nation has a lot of issues to tackle with like poverty, pollution,... Therefore, government funding should be used to cope with these problem. This will enhance  population life's quality and the country's developement in economy and even culture. For example, if the government construction new roads, many lifes will be saved. Moreover, the global are facing many environmental problems. National expenditure can be used to help other countries which are facing severe pollution. There are many problems need to deal with immediately around us so we have to put these issues first before developing art and culture.

On the other hand, supporting art and culture do bring some certain benefits. Cultural activities still play an important role in people's lives. Any countries have there own cultural activities and preserve them untill today. These activities bring people together, even between different culture. They help preserve the cultural diversity and the country's disparity in the trend of globalisation. Cultural activities can also help the country's economy as many people from around the world will come to visit.

In conclusion, I believe that both aspects are important to a nation's development and the government should address these problems equally.

# data[].attributes.body
As many aspects of our life is facilitating, art and culture undoubtedly have aroused much controversy. While a school of thought hold that art and culture should be backed up with goverment expenditure, others firmly believe that the financial support for this is unirrelevant and unessential. In this essay, the writer is going to discuss both view and state my opinion.

On the one hand, art and culture have exert positive outcome on the society thanks to the nation budget investment. In economic terms, this has brought tremendous benefits to tourism and service entertainment. Due to Cultural development, by lauching commercial campaign can the government attract an enormous number of tourist. Moreover, with the investment into art, museum, art gallery and so on can reach high potential of being on the rise, and make a lucrative profit.

On the other hand, it is in the least advantageous for the governent to financially support art and culture. The most significant reason for this is that ocasionally the art and cultural-related industry can witness flaw. The covid pandemic would perfectly exemplify this, as the level of covid cases are on the rise, travelling activities must be cancelled for safety sake, and this has exerted an adverse bearing on our economy. Therefore, it is undeniable that investment into art and culture is uneccessary

In conclusion, to my mind financial support on art and culture has exerted positive out come.

# data[].attributes.body
In this day and age, government funding for art and culture has always been a topic of general interest. While some people claim that this is an unnecessary investment, others believe citizens and culture would benefit from the government providing financial support for cultural activities. I will discuss both views and state my opinion in this essay.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that Vietnam as many other countries have to deal with many social problems as the national budgets should be spent properly. For instance, critical issues such as education, poverty, social unrest, or pollution remain major concerns reducing the residents' quality of life that authorities should prioritize to tackle. To be more specific, with the huge support in education, a large number of well-informed and educated citizens could rapidly make a great contribution to the nation's workforce. Therefore, the national economy would strongly develop.

On the other hand, investing in art and culture brings numerous benefits for the population and society. Initially, art and culture represent the history of a country, so that it should be carefully preserved. For example, Dong Ho Painting Village, a beautiful symbol in Vietnamese culture, has succeeded in passing cultural traits and traditions from generation to generation by highlighting every aspect of daily rural life in the paintings. Moreover, performing arts companies could make a remarkable contribution to the local economy by generating more employment for artists and designers. Therefore, it is necessary for authorities to allocate resources in supporting art and culture.

In conclusion, while some people are opposed to the idea of providing financial assistance for art and culture, I firmly believe that governments should promote art and culture as their great value that brings advantages to human life.

# data[].attributes.body
As of late, how to use state funds properly is still a controversial problem. This leads to two sources of conflicting opinions, one of which is art and culture should be supported by those in power. However, other people believe that cultural activities be provided with financial support due to their benefits to the culture. This essay will discuss both views and give out my opinion.

Some believe that more important social problems such as health and education marginalize cultural activities, as those problems have direct impacts on the life of the resident. Focusing on developing those facilities acts as a precursor to the improvement of people’s life quality. For example, improving the facilities of a hospital can make people more comfortable when coming for treatment. Nevertheless, the cost to consolidate such a large system may cost an arm and a leg, let alone supporting the culture at the same time. With those mentioned reasons, some individuals describe to a view that injecting money into art and culture is such a waste.

On the other hand, there is no denying that culture is the spirit of a nation. Cultural activities enrich the spiritual life of the citizen and act as a base for them to be proud of their country. Having museums for historical relics or cultural preservation organisations provides people with knowledge of their country's history and the world's history. The prouder the citizen is toward their country, the more willing they are to follow their predecessor’s devotion to the country. Those aforementioned reasons lead to the belief that it is necessary for the governors to support cultural activities.

In conclusion, from my perspective, the authorities should try their best to balance the money spent on the development of both social and cultural preservation, as they play an important role in the development of a community.

# data[].attributes.body
In this day and age, the fund for art and culture has attracted a great deal of public attention. Certain people subscribe to a view that government funding should be invested for art and culture, while others contend that cultural activities are not beneficial for the population and culture. This essay will discuss both views and give an opinion at the end.

On the one hand, it is reasonable that government funding should be used to support art and culture. It is evident that art and culture have an inextricable relationship with history, thus the funds by government will improve and enhance the public’s knowledge of history and culture, which has died down because of people’s concentration on other problems in life such as income and family. This will raise people’s appreciation to art and culture of their own nation that can later be national pride. Moreover, the government coffers are crucial to develop and foster talents who are endowed with artistic abilities. This would make children use their full talents, which ultimately, it is them who will preserve the culture and art

On the other hand, it stands to reason why people believe that supporting art and culture are not beneficial for the population and the culture. Regarding the population, due to the majority of people nowadays’ attention are not cultural events but income, family and job security, thus it is a waste of money and effort to subsidize more on the category that does not attract and benefit the public. Moreover, in terms of cultural benefits,  more allocations from the government will not benefit the culture overall because the activities are repetitive so it brings  boredom to the majority of people. This means  more money spent on cultural activities will not capture public attention and ultimately, does not benefit culture in general.

From my perspective, I strongly believe that more money should be allocated to support art and culture because of the aforementioned benefits. People might think that culture and art exists with no purpose, but actually, it is the country’s perception to be judged on. This can secure their existence in the world or even defend from other countries’ invasion. Taking  Israel or even Vietnam for instance, these two countries are eminent for their defensive power due to numerous wars they have fought, thus they make it as their shield from foreign’s bad intentions.

In conclusion, spending money on culture and art yields long-term profit of preserving the nation’s own culture, which is the public perception of the country.

# data[].attributes.body
Opinions diverge on the necessity of funding cultural activities. While some claim it is an unnecessary investment, others believe both citizens and cultures would benefit if governments were to provide financial support for art and culture. I will discuss both views and state my own opinion in this essay.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why some agree that the national budget ought not to be spent on art and culture. First, there are many serious problems in our society that need the aids of the government, which is establishing new infrastructures for education system or providing the  healthcare system with modern devices. As a result, these may improve the quality life of humans better than the entertainments that art and culture bring. Second, many celebrities may totally afford to cultural and art events since they earn a tremendous amount of money from their audiences. The situation manifests itself starkly in singer Le Quyen, had a huge expenditure on her live show in 2019.
On the other hand, I totally agree with the idea that it is extremely needful to focus on art and culture because of their advantages. In fact, with the development of technology, people would rather try new things, like games than pay attention to cultural activities. Therefore, the expenditure on art and cultural would be an efficient way to preserve the core value of tradition from dissipating. Consequently, giving budget in cultural and art may encourage teenagers to understand about traditional values.
In conclusion, while art and culture exert a substantial advantages, I strongly hold the view that government should prioritize on national issues.

# data[].attributes.body
In this day and age, a certain number of individuals subscribe to a view that the government should not consider the necessity of having money expenditure on supporting art or culture. While the other part of the public would agree with the view of having the government funding and raising fund for the act of preserving culture and arts. This essay will take a provocative look at the aforementioned statements as well as sharing the writer's opinion on these school of thoughts.

On the one hand, there are individuals who oppose to the act of investing cash on cultural activities because there are certainly more serious problems that should be addressed to the government. The quality degradation of the traffic infastructure in many large cities,for instance is the reason why there were many traffic accidents that happened. The expenditure directed towards the repair and constructions of roads, highways and tunnels would immediately affect the traffic system dramatically and that could save approximately millions of lives. In addition, various countries around the globe are facing the hardest problem yet to  be solved forever in the smoothest way possible, the environmental problems that urgently requires attention from the public view and the government to take action as quick as possible. Leaders of this country, therefore, should join forces with the biologists and scientists to further on combating these issues by funding the biologists work in finding a more eco-friendly and renewable source of energy that could further on replace the traditional fossil fuels that will potentially deplete in the future. It can totally be observed that there is no point in spending money on cultural activities before ensuring a safe and clean environment for the citizens.

The other parts of the public attention being advocates of art and culture, on the other hand, argued that cultural activities play a very vital role in everyday life. Promotions that are directed towards the countries' traditions' and antiques' value would keep the younger generation and the individuals from other cultures to understand about it better, therefore benefitting the mutual relationship between each countries. Moreover, the fact that the traditional value is maintained for a lengthy amount of time would strengthen a nation's spirit by reminding their citizens about the great achievements that helped with forming a country we see in this day and age, thus boosting the country's pride in front of friends in other countries. In addition, the preservation of artifacts used in various historical events like wars and new inventions could be the presentation of national identities of each citizen in a country.

All and all, according to the writer's own view of this matter, while it is very important to preserve a nation's identity, there is no denying that there are several important matters that also should be focused on such as traffic and environmental problems. Focusing on all of these problems would then further on improve a nation and further on beautify more about the presentation of the nation itself in front of the global views.

# data[].attributes.body
As of late, the government funding has aroused more controversy.  While a sum of people believe that government subsidy shouldn’t be spent on supporting art and culture, others argue that backing up cultural activities could be advantageous in regard to citizens and the culture. This essay is going to discuss both standpoints and then give my opinion.

On the one hand, it is true that spending government on other categories other than art and culture might exert good results. Notwithstanding the importance of art and culture, there are numerous urging quests for authorities to remedy such as environment, famine and unemployed. Moreover, injecting money in the field of art might be detrimental to the economy and create an enormous loss in regime budget.

On the other hand, supporting cultural activities could create greater values. First and foremost, that action taken by the government will propagandize cultural awareness. Therefore, the tourism will be boosted, creating more jobs prospect for the citizens. In addition, patriotism and harmonization between residents could be enhance. For those justifications, I am of the opinion that preserving a country’s heritage is a nescessity and simutaneously solve the unemployed situation in secluded area.

In conclusion, while government subsidy can be used to adjust other issues, I believe that cultural activities are essential and beneficial.

# data[].attributes.body
Recently, there has been an increase in the number of persons who have a significant impact on the official budget. As a result, the sector in which monetary investment should be invested has sparked a lot of debate. Some people believe that government financial support should be used to promote art and culture. This article will discuss both points of view before offering my own viewpoint.
On the one hand, there is no denying that if Vietnam is to become a developed country, it must address a slew of societal issues that are becoming more obvious by the day. To begin with, the part of the cash spent on exhibits might be used to relieve hunger and poverty. Second, it is obvious that Vietnam's civic facilities are out of date and need to be updated in order to serve the people. Furthermore, because the art sector generates no financial advantages, the government should invest in industries that contribute to the nation's economy, such as import, export, education, and production.
On the other hand, the government should not underestimate the importance of art and culture and should invest financially in it. Since time immemorial, aesthetic qualities, as well as cultural festivals, have had a positive impact on mankind, and only a primitive mentality would foolishly disregard the essential factor of art and culture. It is commonly accepted that a country's cultural events and other features make it distinct and distinguishable from other countries. Without them, or without significant investment in them, the country will become a poor-culture nation, unable to attract tourists from other nations who will get bored with the country's regular traditions and aesthetic features. Investment in this area implies the government may either renovate or reinvent them, resulting in a huge return for the authority's budget.
All things considered, while some issues continue to need large sums of money that must be disregarded, I feel that culture and art are deserving of significant government funding.

# data[].attributes.body
Nowadays, the government is capitalizing on many fields to develop the society dramatically. Some individuals state that the authority ought not to use the funding for art and culture. However, other people think that endowing cultural activities can be advantageous to the public. In this essay, I will analyze both notions above and give my opinion.

On the one hand, some people do not support the government in investing art and cultural activities because there are many vital problems that need to be funded or subsidized. The poverty in rural areas, for example, is a persistent issue that demands many finances. It is true that the poverty leads to dire consequences such as increasing crime rate and health issues. There are many underprivileged people decide to practice illegal activities, mostly robbing or stealing, to earn a living. Thus, the safety of other citizens is not ensured, which can raise some chaos within the society. Besides, in terms of health issues, poor people, because of lacking money, cannot have adequate nutrition and get access to healthcare system. Therefore, people may have severe and chronic diseases, and their mental health is also affected negatively.

On the other hand, using funding for supporting art and culture is also beneficial to the community for several reasons. Firstly, art and cultural projects and campaigns improve the quality of life for people. Those activities enable people to pursue creative interests, prevent depression and anxiety. Besides, having frequent engagement with art and culture may result in a higher level of subjective wellbeing, which is completely positive. Secondly, art and culture activities are also critical to the development of children. Youngsters can improve their cognitive capabilities, as well as soft skills, by taking part in those activities. Moreover, their creativity may be enhanced remarkably.

In conclusion, I think that art and culture should be invested by the government. However, the authority needs to consider carefully to divide budget reasonably so that the society can benefit the most.

# data[].attributes.body
These days, a colossal amount of money have been spent on changing lives standard for the better, especially in hunger and shelters. In other occasions, some are spent on what many might say worthless such as art and culture. While the statement is understandable , others believe that embracing art and culture would benefits the population and the culture. This essay will judge both views and present my statement.
On the one hand, while government invest vast amount of money into a subject which is not so practical like art, other problems will likely to flourish. While art in general or culture learning is only capable to save one from the inside, realistic issues would put civilians live into agony and desperation. Take one of the world's most renowned problem like hunger, many civilians  could handle being lonely and melancholy for a long time without art or culture  but just a few days of starvation will lead to death in the most painful way in a global level.
On the other hand, art and culture learning would elevate standards human life inner-wise. Firstly, by promoting new generations towards their's country history and legacy, it would bring about immense patriotism, leaving them with motivation to fight and ameliorate their country. Moreover, deeply financing in art leads to more inner peace within whom has gone through tragedies or overloaded ones, therefore reducing suicides rate. All in all, investments in art and culture would also be a way to resolve
In conclusion, both statements are valid and should be equally invested by the government. However, it is best to treat one's own country based on their financial and population issues to have the most suitable solution

# data[].attributes.body
As of late, a great many amount of individuals have adopted a view that funding of the government ought not to be used for the assistance of art and culture. Others believe that financing artistic and cultural activities might bring benefits to the community as well as our culture. This essay will shed a light on both of these views as well as giving my own opinion on the matter.
On one hand, it is undeniable that Vietnam as well as many other countries face a lot of dilemmas and it would be wise for the government to focus their finances on tackling these problem. For example, issues such as public safety, poverty, lacking of medical support.... These problems undoubtedly will stand in the way of nations on their path of development. Although a nation will face many hardships to completely solve these complications, alleviating them would without a doubt greatly increase the quality of living for many residents.
On the other hand, promoting arts and cultures is not without it's merits. Firstly, it will educate the younger generations about cultural heritages, keeping them in touch with the past. In contrast, by forgoing cultural practices, it is possible for traditions to become completely demolished and forgotten, leading to significant decrease of cultural value of a nation. In addition, there are scientific proofs that artistic activities help children become smarter and more creative which would also indirectly benefit a country as the new generations are responsible for the world's future.
In conclusion, there are no clear-cut in what the government should prioritize their funding one. However, in my opinion, it is best to focus on diminishing public problem and increase the standard of living of the populace.

# data[].attributes.body
Some people are of the belief that authoritative money should be used for coping with numerous issues of one nation rather than investing in art and culture. Yet, some oppose that supporting art and traditional festivities exerts a conducive bearing on the population and the culture. This essay will analyze both views and my point of view toward these statements.

To commence with,  it is such a no-brainer to acknowledge the value of article features and cultural activities to society. They are synonymous with the history of that nation and thus preserving and developing it means conservating the past of one country. Provided that the government stop allocating their budget on aesthetic and cultural aspect, they will demolish the history of their nation let alone maintain it. Without a doubt, the pyramids in Egypt perfectly exemplifies this vital role of art and culture. If these primitive constructions were not conserved, Egyptian students, as well as foreign, would not know about the myth of the pharaoh and the heroic history of Egyp. Hence, the authority of this nation spend million dollar annually for the conservation of these pyramids. This is a testament to why the government should expend its budget on cultural activities and aesthetic features.

Nonetheless, regardless of the huge merit from art and culture to one country, it is advisable for the authority to address a huge number of adverse issues by using monetary investments. Excessive investing in one side like art and culture of a country can trigger a minor development of the other aspects. As a result, a nation undoubtedly pivots towards an underprivileged country that can become a potential target for the invaders. Famine, for instance, is such a severe threat that government should use their funding for unless they want to tackle myriad unexpected consequences such as shortage of citizens or economic decline. This evidence has strongly proved that the usage of administrative funding for developing one nation besides from article and cultural aspect is extremely crucial.

In short, I hold the strong view that the government should equivalently allocate their funding for both art and culture and the other aspects to fully develop their nation instead of focus excessively on one side and ignore the others.

# data[].attributes.body
As of late, there has been an increasing number of people have a considerable bearing on the authoritative budget. Because of this reason, the field which the monetary investment should be spent on has aroused much controversy. Some people adopt a view that the governmental financial assistance should be spent on stimulating art and culture. This essay will discuss both view and then give my own opinion.

On the one hand , it is regarded by many that everyone is forgetting the values and traditions day by day that are followed for centuries. These artistic features and cultural festivals add huge value to the particular place by describing the prominence of the particular arts. Without them or substantially allocating in them, the country will likely be an unattractive nation to tourists form overseas countries or maybe even the locals. We have been seeing that there is an increase in people who are visiting cities to know about traditions that have been preserved for thousand of years. Supporting the arts and culture in turn, creates the revenue by attracting the foreigners from various parts of world. Therefore, supporting culture means supporting the whole tourism industry, which brings more attention to that country and jobs opportunities to the people.

On the other hand, there are more vital sectors  that need  funding. The government can fund healthcare, road infrastructure and education. This in turn can facilitate the development of a healthy nation, improve the economy and, substantially, living conditions. In my opinion, fulfilment of basic needs is more important than promoting national heritage and cultural aspects.  For instance, a sick and uneducated person cannot fully value as a piece of art. Another issue that needs investing is the environment. In many areas, the pollution is relatively serious due to the emissions from a large number of cars which are in used and a huge amount of waste that is discharged into the environment by factories. As a result, government funding should be used to address these problems.

In conclusion, while I agree that the national budget should be used for developing the education and tackling the environmental issues, I firmly believe that the investment for promoting art and culture should not be overlooked because of its merits for people and the community.

# data[].attributes.body
Art and culture have always attracted a great deal of attention from both citizens and politicians .Recently, there has a school of thought that the investment towards cultural activities by the government is a waste of resources , others reckon that the advantages of funding cultural activities towards the country's population and culture outweigh the disadvantages . This essay will shed light on both standpoints and give my judgement on said issues.

On the one hand , there is no arguing that if Vietnam wants to become a developed nation ,then it has to tackle a myriad of social problems as it's growing more apparent day by day. . Firstly , the portion of the budget spent on exhibitions can be use to eradicate hunger and alleviate poverty . Secondly , it is undeniable that the civic facilities in Vietnam are not up to date and should be renovated in order to service the people. In addition , the art industry doesn't generate any financial benefits, so it is obvious that the government ought to invest in fields ,that contributes to the nation's economy, such as import , export , education and production.

On the other hand, others believe that traditions must be kept alive by promoting and investing in the art industry. Firstly , by promoting about the country's antiques and traditions will keep the younger generations in touch with their past. Secondly , it can also help strengthen one  national's spirit by reminding them of the remarkable feats of their nation. Moreover , by investing in cultural activities and preserving artifacts , the identity of a country is preserved for generations to come.

In conclusion , while it is important to promote and preserve our culture ,i believe that the government should prioritize on enhancing the living quality for the people of their nations by addressing social issues.

# data[].attributes.body
As of late, people  hold a view that government's monetary investment should be spent on art and culture. While this thinking is understandable, there are those who say government should spend more on cultural activities. This essay will discuss both view and give my opinion.

One the one hand, there is no denying that the government has to cope with a bundle of social problems as the society elements becomes more and more complex. Therefore, authority is forced to invest more on public issues to intercept them from becoming inextricable and prevents one's country from development in the future. Moreover, crimes will become a severe problems if authority ignore the poverty and starvation rate. This state pushes the government into making the decision to improve the social situtation and resident's living condition.

On the other hand, art and culture plays a crucial role to everybody emotional life. Songs, paintings or writings that touch the inside part of people can bring light to there life. For instance, a comment on Youtube tell a story about the author, who sufferd from depression and got over it thanks to a song. Hence, investment on art  means finding remedy to people's mental problems. This reduces suicide and depression rate in every country, leads to a much more healthier society. Thus, culture is the face of each country, making it stand out of the others. Therefore, supporting culture means supporting the whole tourism industry, which brings more attention to that country and jobs opportunities to the people. This not only a chance for people to start up there own bussiness, but also a way to poplularize a country to others and attract more investors  to that country.

To my mind, although there are some social issues that need to be noticed, government's funding should be spent on art and culture in light of these give reasons.

# data[].attributes.body
HW:Some people think the government funding should not be used for supporting art and culture, others think supporting cultural activities may be beneficial for the population and the culture. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

# data[].attributes.body
As of late, some individuals adopt a view that the monetary expenditure of the public sector ought not to be utilized for supporting superfluous activities like art and culture whilst the objectors demolish that these activities are immensely conducive to the population and the culture. This essay will take a provocative look at the aforementioned statements as well as my standpoint.

On the one hand, there is no denying that authority has to tackle myriad alarming issues which exert an adverse bearing on society in this day and age. Hence, should the government excessively invest in art and culture, these problems will never be fully addressed and might become an insurmountable obstacles to overcome in the foreseeable future. Unquestionably, it is the regime that spends an impartially budget on every aspect of the society so as to fully sharpen its quality. This situation manifests itself starkly in the case of education. Provided that the government underestimates the role of education in their country and keeps utilizing their funds for art and culture, the number of lawbreakers will chronically surge. This is a testament to why it is commendable for the public entities to expend their precious fund on other aspects to enhance the quality of the nation aside from art and traditional festivities.

On the other hand, the authority should not underrate the value of art and culture and ought to monetarily invest in it. Aesthetic features, as well as cultural festivities, have exerted a beneficial outcome on mankind since time immemorial, and only a primitive mind will idiotically ignore the vital determinant of art and culture. It is widely acknowledged that the cultural events and article feature makes a country become unique and distinguishable from the other nations. Without them or substantially allocating in them, the country will become a poor-culture nation and will be unable to attract the tourists from overseas countries as they become mundane about the ordinary tradition and aesthetic feature of that country. Investment in this aspect means that the government can either renovate or innovate them to bring about a tremendous profit for the budget of authority.

In short, irrespective of the fact that there are distinct issues that should be dealt with as soon as possible, I am in accordance with the view that the government ought not to underestimate the vital play of article features and traditional festivities and allocate an identical fund to them.

# data[].attributes.body
Opinions diverge on the necessary of monetary investment in art and culture. While some people state that it is trivial, others believe this shift can be conducive for national as well as cultural conservation. This essay will delve both view and finally give my own opinion.
On the one hand, the plurality oppose investing in cultural activities because there are more primary and serious issues need to be addressed. Starvation, for example, is still a paramount importance problem in developing countries blamed for the shortage of agricultural modern tools. Thus, government should divert colossal amount of money to ameliorate this issue before considering spiritual aspects. Additionally, in international scale, the appearance of environmental that require urgent attention in particularly air pollution and natural resources exhaustion. In light of this, tremendous financial resources should be diverted to combat these phenomenon. To cite a testament, in order to harness water energy, a country must adopt advanced technology as well as infrastructure which is initially expensive but beneficial for environment in long terms.
On the other hand, enthusiasts of cultural and artistic features play an inextricable role in people's life. Cultural events, such as Tet, Christmas are invaluable occasions to take a rest or reunite with family . Thus, allocating money to these activities not only enhances citizen's mental health but also preserves traditional norms especially in present globalization era. Not to mention, cultural and art can be lucrative investments if national leaders fund wisely. In Vietnam, for instance, there are numerous national museums attracting influx of foreign visitors which act as a precursor to thriving tourism.
All things considered, while there are still some problems demand immense money that can not be ignored, I believe culture and art are worthy to gain massive financial support form government.