Some people believe that it is important for governments to pay for large pieces of art, such as sculptures, to put on public display in outdoor places. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Đề bài yêu cầu đưa ra ý kiến cá nhân, bởi vậy mình có thể đồng tình, không đồng tình hoặc đồng tình một phần. Tuy nhiên, mặc dù là ở trường hợp nào thì mọi người cũng được khuyến khích để đưa ra quan điểm đối lập để được đánh giá cao hơn về mặt lập luận, kể cả khi việc đưa vào chỉ để ngay lập tức phản bác lại nó. (VD: Some people might argue that…. However, I believe this is a weak point because…)
Ở đây, mình đưa ra dàn ý của bài nửa đồng ý, nửa không đồng ý.
Nowadays, the argument that governmental authorities must invest in large artistic works to display in the public has gained some popularity. Although the sentiment has certain merits to consider, I can’t agree with it wholeheartedly. This essay is an attempt to elaborate on my position regarding the matter.
There are a lot of benefits to be gained from investment into public artworks. First of all, a sculpture or a wall painting being shown outdoors is not only beautiful in isolation, they also contribute positively to the visual identity of the local areas. Art has the power to transform a visually infertile urban settlement into a colorful and enriching place, as has been the case with various cities in countries like Germany or Mexico. Another benefit of showcasing large artistic pieces is tourism, as they can often serve as tourist attractions for the local area. For example, Thanh Thuy, a relatively normal village in Vietnam, used to fund a group of artists to draw spectacular 3D illustrations on every single wall in the local area. What followed was an immediate economic boom, as they have received a huge influx of international tourists who are eager to witness some of the most stunning wall paintings the country has ever seen.
However, significant drawbacks from government investment in public art cannot be ignored. To begin with, purchasing works of art for public display necessarily pulls the public resources away from other important sectors in society. It is hard to justify building lavish statues when in the vast majority of regions people can’t even afford healthcare or enjoy free education. In addition, when the government is the sole buyer of public artworks, they will have the monopoly to dictate what would represent the city, not the people. Several Southern states in the USA, for example, still have a lot of statues of military leaders who defended segregation and slavery of black people in the South, even if modern Americans generally do not want them to keep standing. That’s why private entities, including ordinary people, companies and non-governmental organizations, should also share the responsibility of purchasing what they consider to represent the collective will of the society.
In conclusion, large-scale art projects can simultaneously attract tourists and improve the appearance of the local area. Nevertheless, it’s not wise to depend entirely on the government to make that decision, because it might lead to a deficit in public funding for more pressing issues, as well as the potential of the political minority having the sole power of defining the visual identity of the society.
(428 words)
Từ vựng IELTS hữu ích
Authorities (n.): Chính quyền
Sentiment (n.): Quan điểm, ý kiến
Merit (n.): Điểm sáng giá
Isolation (n.): Sự cô lập
Identity (n.): Bản sắc
Settlement (n.): Khu vực định cư
Influx (n.): Dòng người
Boom (n.): Một sự bùng nổ
Monopoly (n.): Sự độc quyền
Entity (n.): Thực thể
Deficit (n.): Sự thâm hụt, thiếu hụt (thường dùng trong kinh tế, ví dụ: budget deficit = thâm hụt ngân sách).
Lavish (adj.): Hào nhoáng, xa hoa
Stunning (adj.): Đẹp tuyệt vời
Monotonous (adj.): Đơn điệu
Collective (adj.): Liên quan tới tập thể
Transform (v.): Biến hóa
Dictate (v.): Đưa ra quyết định tối thượng
Justify (v.): Biện hộ
Witness (v.): Chứng kiến
Wholeheartedly (adv.): Một cách hoàn toàn
Necessarily (adv.): Một cách cần thiết
