Art has served an important role since ages. However, many feel that the government should not fund this, in order to support a minority interest. Do you agree or disagree?

Art has served an important role since ages. However, many feel that the government should not fund this, in order to support a minority interest. Do you agree or disagree?

A school of thought is quite critical about state augmenting art, in all its manifestations, monetarily because it fails to appeal to a large part of demographics; thus, it must stop. However, I fail to subscribe to this notion, and favour continuation of such support.  

Those  skeptical of this policy found their argument on the belief that the works of art only tend to interest the elite, whereas the majority find themselves struggling to make their ends meet, and hence, have little time for such luxuries. Moreover, there are several areas like education, food, and health, among others, that need urgent attention. Therefore, in the wake of such circumstances, it is quite warranted to halt such extravagance. 

On the contrary, this perception would be consequential if it were true; artistic expression, in the form of music, poetry, and so forth, has always had a dominating influence on the human psyche. Where on one hand, it has rendered a medium for entertainment, rejuvenation and unwinding, besides exhibiting emotions. On the other hand, it is a potent tool of stimulating creativity, which is extensively used to foster resourcefulness even among doctors, engineers and researchers, to name a few. 

Similarly, this is the only carrier that has always helped one generation to transmit the knowledge of traditions, customs and rituals, to their successors, thereby perpetuating culture, and guaranteeing its survival. To corroborate, literature, drama, songs, and poems act as huge repositories of cultural heritage, and connect communities with their ancestors effectively, and let them educate their progeny about their past. 

In hindsight, the objections raised by the detractors of the art should be overlooked, and policy-makers must lay every possible assistance at the disposal of all art domains, for these help mankind overcome challenges and protect ancestral knowledge.   

There are many different types of music in the world today. Why do we need music? Is the traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard everywhere nowadays? Discuss.

There are many different types of music in the world today. Why do we need music? Is the traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard everywhere nowadays? Discuss.

Music has always been an integral part of human life. It is a universal language that nobody needs to learn. However, it is the debatable topic which genre holds more relevance: indigenous or global. The following paragraphs intend to assess the significance of this form of art and conclude which type has more influence. 

Music is food for the soul; it helps people to express their feelings, emotions when words are not enough, or when others are not comfortable in sharing their thoughts.  It also works as therapy: alleviating stress, bolstering concentration and focus. Apart from that, it is also the best exercise for weight loss: many use it as a medium to support their dance exercise routines.

Some advocate the importance of native music; it is a symbol of local culture and heritage, which helps one to connect to their roots and know more about their traditions. A survey conducted in California University revealed that 40% of young generations sourced their knowledge about their rituals and ways of life from this form of art only either by listening, or by watching the content supporting it.

Nevertheless, some assert that universal music has been gaining traction due to technological advancements. It allows people to experience diverse types, and acts as a platform for bringing disparate ethnicities together, fostering a sense of belongingness to global ways of life and aspirations, helping build harmony by inspiring the global populace to sport a uniform expression rather than distinctiveness.   

To conclude, this form of art has always existed to support mankind in different ways, and all its genres enjoy distinct relevance; thus, comparison is irrelevant. Each music genre has their own importance, but one should always stay connected with their local music as it preserves their culture and values. 

Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There has been a controversy on the freedom of expression for poets, musicians, and film-makers, to name a few. Many believe that such individuals should enjoy the liberty to create and exhibit their work, while others favor defining some limits. This essay shall critically scrutinise this matter and draw a plausible conclusion.

To embark upon the discussion, it is commonly professed that those  engaged in various manifestations of art should enjoy full control over their ideas. These individuals promote innovation, and thus,  should be able to express their thoughts without the fear of censorship, or reprimand,  and usher in freshness, and  adding to the vibrant social environment. Moreover, art is not only considered a powerful way  of expressing feelings and emotions but also addresses several social issues, engendering awareness about critical communal challenges and  stigmas, and inspiring a change. For instance, the movie “Orange is the new black” was released highlighting the challenges faced by black people in the USA; it created enlightenment about the people facing racial injustice, and persuaded scores  of US  citizens  to call for halting this appalling practice.  

Nevertheless, the critics throw up their arms in horror and suggest that it is essential for the government to regulate the work of art. According to them, those creating such content might become irresponsible and violate moral values and express themselves in inappropriate forms, causing social discord, and hence, cannot be overlooked. For example, in 2011, a music producer presented a song that resulted in chaos and disharmony, and led to a curfew in Italy.  

To conclude, disputes aside, I feel even though the ideas and thoughts of the artists might promote progress, some governmental intervention is essential for the sake of public good, and  sustain a harmonious communal environment. 

Some believe that the government should support artists like musicians, painters, and poets, while others argue that this is a misuse of funds.

 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

Why? These people do not have resources to support them 

• They represent the culture and tradition and help perpetuate these  further: this has been historically proven 

• Their work reflects the condition of society 

• These people have a pivotal in bringing around revolutions

• They are also responsible for helping society become visible 

This is wastage of money 

• Funds could be used to alleviate problems like poverty 

• Funds could be used to carry out research and improve technology 

The idea of the state affording financial support to those performing various kinds of arts, invites mixed views, with some supporting this, others rejecting it. 

The advocates of such funding propose that individuals engaged in realms of music, painting, and poetry, to name a few, enjoy a special position in society; they are the sole medium of perpetuating the knowledge and wisdom, accumulated by ancestors over the eons, about history, culture, rituals, and traditions, down the generations. In absence of these societies would lose its identity, due to being disconnected from its past, and fade away soon. However, these exponents lack money to survive and carry out this critical duty, making it imperative for society to bolster them, and policy makers being the true representatives for the country must take ownership in this endeavor. 

Similarly, these art practitioners don other important roles of entertaining and informing the inhabitants of the nation about the conditions of their surroundings, and challenges facing them. To corroborate, poems and songs, especially the traditional genre, have not only amused their audiences but also helped them to enlighten themselves about social evils/stigma, and persuade them to abandon such practices.

Nevertheless, those critical of such initiatives tend to present the same old argument that these monetary resources instead of being squandered in such useless undertakings, would have been used to alleviate illiteracy and poverty, and render better healthcare and amenities to the marginalized, but their different objections fall flat as preserving all manifestations of art is as crucial as progressing.

In hindsight, the critics will be critics, and bound to doubt every noble move, nonetheless extending all possible assistance to musicians, poets, and so on, should continue, for this is the only way to sustain continuity of social and cultural values.  

Introduction 1

The public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with the issue that should the state afford financial support to those performing various kinds of art. While some are in favor of this, others profess that the monetary resources could be used in other more critical areas.

Introduction 2

There is a fierce debate between different schools of thought when it comes to the issue of the state affording financial support to those performing various kinds of art, since some are in favor of this, others consider it as a useless exercise, and recommend better use of resources.

Introduction 3

In today’s world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our artists such as musicians, painters and writers. What can the arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?

In today’s world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our artists such as musicians, painters and writers. What can the arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?

Even in an era, when technology has proliferated to every walk of life, art, in disparate forms continues to enjoy a considerable relevance; it can yield umpteen benefits and facilities to society, something out of bounds for the modern introductions. The following paragraphs shall elucidate these factors in detail.

Undeniably, art is central to entertainment, in all its manifestations, be it a book, a melody, a poem, and music, to name a few, which even though is brought to audiences with the help of technology, it is the only reason why one buys televisions, music systems, e-readers, tablets, and so on; without these all the modern devices and gadgets will have little significance. To exemplify, one watches television to either watch movies, soap operas, and musical concerts; if these were not there, these equipment would not have come into existence.

Similarly, apart from entertainment, this form of human expression is believed to be a pivotal medium, of developing and augmenting intuitiveness. Literature, paintings, and musical composition, to name a few , persuade humans to foster a broader perspective and innovative thought process; through these, they can learn to think deeply, becoming capable of discovering a fresh approach. 

Moreover, music, poetry, writings, and so on, have ceaselessly rendered a chief medium of moving information about culture, customs and traditions, across space and from one generation to the next. Mankind has been a witness to perpetuation of the knowledge of ways of life, accumulated over the eons - through books, legends, sculptures, and many more, informing the contemporary generations of their glorious past.  

In hindsight, art has always extended inspiration in a myriad of ways, giving them some entertaining moments and boosting their imagination. In fact almost all branches of science owe their source to art, in its various genres.

 

In some countries, there are fewer young people who listen to or play classical music these days. Why is this? Should young people be encouraged to play or perform classical music?

In some countries, there are fewer young people who listen to or play classical music these days.
Why is this?
Should young people be encouraged to play or perform classical music?

Culture and tradition of any country cannot be depicted any better than its classical music, which nowadays very few youngsters listen to or play. The reasons for the same can be attributed to various factors, persuading many to support the practice of encouraging the young blood to develop an inclination towards this genre.

The prominent reason for disenchantment, among the youth, towards this genre of music is the parents who themselves prefer to enjoy the rock music to portray that they are still young while ridiculing conventional types, and the children tend to follow their precedents, making them abandon the classical music. Also, the shows telecasted on radios and television focus more on modern day songs which sans any touch of classical symphonies, to earn more TRP; thus, listening to the modern manifestation of this art has become a fad among the youngsters and they profusely use these at the parties and functions at colleges, gyms, and so on.   

Nevertheless, the fast disappearing ancient music is an alarming condition, it can be popularized again by deploying certain prudent steps. The young minds should be encouraged at the familial level by coaxing young ones to embrace native culture by playing some popular classical melodies, akin to their tastes, at home. Also, the media houses should host soaps: singing competitions and musical quizzes featuring only classic genre, and award the winner with a debut album, so that more and more youngsters find it interesting to listen to and perform classics.

In hindsight, the conventional music, endemic to a region and culture, is becoming less conspicuous among the upcoming generation by virtue of various influences; having said that, the panacea lies in smartly making young ones vulnerable this type of music. 

The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

Why should art and history enthusiasts bear the expenditure of sustaining museums and art galleries 

• Public money is better used in alleviating social issues and addressing concerns of those who find it hard to survive 

• Visiting museums and art galleries is an elite fad and they can afford to pay for their pastimes 

Why should it not be their responsibility 

• Art and culture is a collective responsibility and not of a single group: these are the true face of the creative side and glorious past of a society.   

• Perpetuating the beliefs

• These places need regular maintenance and upgradation that can only be funded continuously by the state, and charging buffs will reduce their numbers and leave these places to deteriorate.   

• They are also paying taxes and they, like others, have a right to demand such leisure  facilities free of cost. 

The colossal investments by the British government for preserving and promoting museums and various forms of arts, has irked numerous critics who suggest that this expenditure should be the onus of the admirers of these venues. Nevertheless, this proposal can be challenged on various grounds. 

To start with, those who harbor this view, vehemently assert that it is worthless to squander invaluable public money on something that is followed by a very small proportion of the population. It would be more feasible for this section to pay for upkeep of such places, so that the money amassed from taxpayers can be used to alleviate  various social maladies like impoverishment, illiteracy and crime, to name a few. This would help render a great relief to those who lack access to even the basic amenities such as food, shelter and clothing. 

However, it will be quite inappropriate to yield to the whims of the detractors as venues that host disparate/diverse/different manifestations/forms of culture and traditions in the form of art and history, act as repositories of the knowledge and wisdom accumulated over the eons along with representing the creative side of the society. These places and forms also aid in perpetuating native customs and beliefs,and therefore, they happen to be a collective responsibility, rather than of those who are keen/avid followers of such endeavors. These people instead play a critical role of creating enlightenment around and persuading others to appreciate their past and also creativity.

 Overall, I consider this proposal to be ludicrous/ laughable/ absurd/ ridiculous and fail to subscribe to this in absolute terms. It is the history and arts that have assisted the society to evolve into what it is today. Thus, the state support for such undertakings should continue.  

Music is appreciated in every major society and culture of the world today. Sone people believe that music is to be shared. Others, however, believe that music belongs to those who make it and should only be shared with their authorisation.

 

Music is appreciated in every major society and culture of the world today. Sone people believe that music is to be shared. Others, however, believe that music belongs to those who make it and should only be shared with their authorization.    

  

Why free access 

• Music is collective property with no one having proprietary rights, and inspires composers
• Allowing free access can fetch visibility to people 

Why not

• This could discourage creators of music 
• Creators enjoy the privilege of decision of to share or not to      

Music, in all its manifestations,  has always fascinated humans, but should it be rendered freely to all, or  should the composers enjoy the right to share it, is a matter deeply debated. 

There is a strong argument in favor of making this form of art available to everyone without  any restriction, which banks upon the fact that music is deeply entwined with the culture and  tradition it represents; thus, no one enjoys  a proprietary claim over it. When even the best of composers draw  inspiration from the  native genres of this art form and churn out melodious notes, why should it not be accessed by all without worrying about permissions to enjoy it. 

Another  perspective that looks at the positive  side of permitting free access to musical compositions. This can help creators gain visibility among the listeners, fetching them not  only work but also aiding in survival in the times when, every  day, new musicians  are surfacing on the horizon. Keeping creations obscure will be of little assistance,  and  will be forgotten by those,  who pay to listen because of fresh work being made public every day.    

Nevertheless, the critical opinion on this issue favors the practice of creators reserving the privilege of rendering free public access to their work. They have every right to enjoy the exploits of the investment  of their creativity and efforts,  in terms of monetary gains, and no one should object to this since musical  notes are  just another form of artistic work, like paintings and  sculpture, which sell for money.     

Overall, it may seem to some that discretion of sharing music should rest on the creators, I, nonetheless, feel that this art form should be allowed a free access by all: it will bring rich yields for producers.  

Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• 
  
  

  
  

Agree? Why? 

• They represent the culture and tradition and help perpetuate these  further: this has been historically proven 

• Their work reflects the condition of society 

• These people have a pivotal in bringing around revolutions

Disagree? Why? 

• Some people have the habit of abusing their creative freedom and tend to create controversial work which can upset certain sections of society and cause unrest 

• Nowadays, many have started harboring commercial interests and tend to create for character assassination of certain key public figures 

The great public discourse of current times is aligned with the issue of whether people blessed with creativity should be bound by certain restrictions or not. Some are in favor of rendering complete independence, others are up in arms against this motion.

When it comes to discussing affording freedom to those engaged in creative arts,  there is a general perception that it should be accorded unconditionally. However, there are views that stand against this notion.        

There is an overwhelming support for the notion of rendering absolute liberty to the exponents of various art forms. This opinion is founded on the historical facts that reflect that it is these people who have helped perpetuate traditions and culture. The creative expression that evolved in the past and that enjoyed complete freedom has made it possible for the current generations to know about their heritage and also how their ancestors survived and thrived. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the current generation to let people engaged in various manifestations of art, to freely churn out their imaginative masterpieces so that the descendants can also be informed about today.  

However, there is a view that is based on the current socio-political situation across the world where the world is experiencing a volatile environment, and a little instigation can result in social unrest since some work might not go down well with certain communities and they may react violently. Therefore, there is a need to install some limits to ensure that creativity does not evoke controversies and arouse emotions. There have been several incidents in recent years where some societies resorted to violent protests due to some paintings, cartoons and movies, which resulted in loss of man and material.      

Overall, I partially concur with this proposal: even though affording freedom to those working in various realms of artistic domains is justified, there need to be some monitoring and regulation to ensure that their work does not bring the public in harm’s way.   

Some people say that music can bring people of different cultures and ages together. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

 

Some people say that music can bring people of different cultures and ages together. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? 

There is a common belief that music has a potential to bring people from various ethnicities, nationalities, age groups and sociocultural backgrounds on one platform, but nonetheless, this view is countered by a lobby.   

The notion of music integrating individuals from disparate backgrounds and age groups finds its support in the fact that every genre of this form of art emanates from the same seven notes which form the foundation of all the rhythms. Therefore, listeners, regardless of their cultural backgrounds, are easily able to correlate and assimilate any kind of music. They are swayed by the compositions even if they can hardly appreciate or comprehend the accompanying lyrics: this art makes them dive deep into the world that is surrounded by sounds that emanate from their souls. 

This can be illustrated by presenting the examples of today where the young are seen listening, dancing, and playing the tunes that they seldom have heard in their cultures and social groups. Several parties, discotheques and events are known to play   songs and compositions of diverse countries and types: pop, folk, jazz to afford an enjoyable experience to the audience. 

Nevertheless, there are some, despite being small in numbers,  who doubt the ability of music in bringing people on a single platform. They often cite the discord that results when listeners, belonging to different age-groups strongly resisting songs and compositions that they find appalling, e.g. the elderly find modern genres annoying while the young generation has little liking for classical, often causing arguments and fights between them. 

Overall, controversies apart, I am in complete agreement with this notion and feel that music transcends political, cultural and  ethnic boundaries,  and it renders harmony rather than creating friction among those hailing from different parts of the globe. 

 

Some people think that music plays an important role in society. Others, however, disagree and say that music is merely a form of entertainment. Discuss both views and state your own opinion.

Some people think that music plays an important role in society. Others, however, disagree and say that music is merely a form of entertainment. Discuss both views and state your own opinion.

Ielts Essay Music USeful 

An unlikely debate seems to have ensued an unlikely debate over the usefulness of music where some hail it as pivotal to the mankind, others  considering it to be a simple a medium of letting off steam and enjoying leisure time and nothing more than that.

Music, in all its manifestations – be it intriguing distinct repertoires  of native genres, or more homogenous sounding currently popular transnational musical compositions – has helped mankind express their, indescribable in words, feelings. This has been aiding people in exhibiting exhilaration, affection, love, lust and valor; rousing devotion and patriotism; depicting and also overcoming melancholy. One wonders what the life be like if this form of art was not there, colorless and unexciting.

Moreover, this art form is considered to be a formidable tool to stay connected with native traditions, beliefs and culture. Wherever one may be, this medium through compositions, notes and melodies keeps reminding people of their cultural and ethnic origins when played during festivities, crisis and social gatherings to name a few. Besides this, it also helps recall the achievements of the ancestors with the help of ballads and folk songs. Thus, binding individuals to their socio-cultural background.

Many do not, however, feel that music has anything to do with productivity or usefulness. A noisy combination of strings, air blown instruments, weird sounding keyboards, and thumping percussion that does little to help humans besides causing nuisance when not required. People only use it to de-stress, reinvigorate, and obtain a healthy distraction from mundane, at other times, they can take people away from  their work.  

In hindsight, controversies apart, music has a great utility for humans in almost all spheres of life, often transcending the limits one can imagine. Thus, any argument against the it lacks substance.  

Museums and art galleries should concentrate on works that show history and culture of their own country rather than works of the other parts in the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Museums and art galleries should concentrate on works that show history and culture of their own country rather than works of the other parts in the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

Ielts Essay Homogeneous and Heterogeneous 

Nowadays, a profound debate is doing rounds in sections of academicians, historians and  politicians, whether museums and art galleries should focus on native history and culture – of their own country, or should they also present work of other countries. I completely reject the view and vouch for these places representing all work, regardless of geographical and political boundaries. 

Proponents of museums and galleries portraying only distinct local work discourage diluting it by including exhibits from other parts of world. The primary objective of museums is to promote local artists – in various fields – and their achievements, expressions and creations. It is necessary to sustain unique identity, so that the native future generations can learn about their own past; appreciate it, and perpetuate those values.

Moreover, these locations and facilities have a novelty value, and are frequented by curious alien  tourists, who come there to experience diversity of a society and not homogeneity, which they can experience elsewhere too. Thus, if the museums and art galleries don a global look and present specimen of other civilizations, they will lose their attraction, and the primary objectives will be lost.

However, the lobby that strongly rallies behind museums and galleries showcasing work from all over the world, consider idea of distinctiveness as obsolete. In an era, when humanity has left behind its history, is globalizing; and is achieving new feats – in terms of technology in confluence with each other, etc., it is practical to moot the idea of allowing these locations to represent sculptures and art from all over the world under one roof.

Hence, museums and galleries should focus on artistic expression from all over the planet, it can be said that future belongs to humanity in harmony, and not to some unique civilizations that harbor tribal attitudes.

Some people say that art should be created by people with special abilities. Others believe that everyone is able to do art. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people say that art should be created by people with special abilities. Others believe that everyone is able to do art. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 

Ielts Essay - Creativity Who's domain is it?

Art, in various manifestations, has always intrigued humans, and over the ages, several masterpieces have been created. But to whom does art really belong; is it a realm of naturally talented people, or is it accessible by everyone.

Art, in any form is a true domain of people with natural inclinations, as they are very sensitive when it comes to observing. They also have an inborn trait of conceptualizing the scenario, surroundings and underlying aspects; and interpreting them in a tangible and understandable form. The works produced by natural artists have the capacity to mesmerize even those with little understanding of creative work. Art is actually an intense, but deeply embedded feeling connected to human emotions which is otherwise very hard to elucidate  if not provided with a proper medium of expression. These complex feelings can only be effectively and beautifully interpreted in tangible forms by those with innate traits.

Moreover, naturally gifted people have the ability to produce masterpieces that greatly influence the psyche of the society. People with a natural quality to produce creative work are the ones who set trends, while others just follow. This has been proven in the past, for instance, people like William Shakespeare did not only write plays but influenced the society with his revolutionary work.

However, arts is not an intellectual property of talented people since every human is full of feelings and aspirations, and they have a right to express them in some creative way if they wish to by learning how to do it. This fact is clearly illustrated by mushrooming schools of arts that train people in various forms of arts; consequently, many have been able to churn out masterpieces.   

To conclude, even though art can practiced by anyone, only the one created by the naturally talented artists stand apart and is admired by millions of followers.

The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree? - ielts Essay

The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the  UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree?  

With British government allocating substantial money to assist various activities connected to art and culture, critics and advocates of this move have been at poles. The sceptics, quote that finances for such an activity must be sourced from private individuals and admirers, while the supporters feel this allocation is important.

Museums and galleries are fascinating and true communicators of the past of a civilization, as they store genuine artefacts, manuscripts and work of thinkers, etc., of diverse eras of past; and provide visitors a thorough first hand interactive experience, which would be remembered for a long time to come in the future. But these establishments require huge a financial outlay and long term planning, which can be taken care of effectively as a collective responsibility, and government, being the head of the social and political set-up in a country, can only shoulder this responsibility, and render whatever assistance, including financial, possible.

Similarly, performing arts of all kinds are manifestations of wisdom, ethics and ways of life of a community and a nation, that have evolved over the centuries. Preserving and proliferating, can be a stupendous and expensive task that may involve a colossal harmonizing effort on part of the society – that sans any bias towards any particular form of art, and is affordable for common citizens. This can be effectively achieved with help of subsidy and government intervention.

The detractors, however, vehemently defend their view by lobbying that the valuable money of tax-payers should not be channelized into a realm that has few enthusiasts. The money, instead, could be used into more critical areas, like upgrading infrastructure; improving facilities, offered to the citizens, and revitalizing the economy.

I personally feel that government must always take care of social endeavours that involve preserving art and culture.

Some people say that having a lot of TV channels is good, while others argue that it reduces the quality of programs. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Write at least in 250 words with relevant examples from your own experience. - Ielts Essay

Ielts Essay - A Lot Of TV Channels

Some people say that having a lot of TV channels is good, while others argue that it reduces the quality of programs. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Write at least in 250 words with relevant examples from your own experience.

The advent and subsequent spread of electronic audio visual entertainment, like television has bought in a renaissance of sorts – where the entertainment has become audience centric – and has led to rise in number of television channels that target specific segments. This has also led to deterioration in the quality of programs being aired.

An increment in number of channels is a result of innovative program planning undertaken by television studios producing and airing shows to suit the taste of targeted audience so that people - not intending to watch unwanted programs- do not need to switch off their television sets. The channels being aired have become subject specific, for instance, the channels associated with travel and lifestyle continuously show programs on various topics connected to this domain. This helps the viewers in gaining more knowledge in their area of interest, besides entertaining themselves. 

Moreover, more television channels means broader perspective and wider choice of programs and presentations – where each channel tries to present an event or a happening from a different angle – which off course prove very advantageous for the viewers; as they are able to gather more information and form a well-informed opinion.

However, the sudden mushrooming of the television channels has also led to deterioration of the quality of the programs being aired. The channels, in a bid to overcome their competition, try to include more and more programs in the iternary schedule, most of which lack imagination, resourcefulness and freshness. Every other show, especially the television serials and music shows look stale and lack taste.

To sum up, I personally feel that though a sudden explosion in number of channels may have affected the quality to an extent, nevertheless, this trend has enabled audience to watch and enjoy the shows it wants.