lengstar said:
Cause Arts isn't a neccessity. It's there to promote intellect and broaden an understanding of the world and generally seen as an activity left to those of wealthier standing in society.
As a leftist, I find it really strange that you don't believe that people are equal. So only those with wealth require a greater understanding of the world and intellect? This is a novel way to examine the divide between the rich and poor.
Sports is aim at the broader community and the general population take up sport more than arts.
1) Actually, the arts are diverse, and include theatre, music, opera, art etc. Sports are a rather narrow field, and while they may appeal to some on an extremely basic level, its very hard to argue that sports appeal to a broader range of people.
2) WOW! So there are more professional athletes than graphics designers, artists, musicians, actors, directors, photographers, set designers etc. Stats please?
You can't use the Olympic facilities as an effective argue as the facilities can be used for numerous functions besides sports, the Olympics itself is a big thing, sports promotes health, and it boosted tourism and the economy as opposed to Art which... well I can't think of anything Art has done for anyone.
Youre right! The Olympic grounds are often used for concerts, and artistic exhibitions.
As a leftist, i thought you'd recognise and appreciate that the arts
- Promote cultural understanding and diversity, and additionally promote international links.
- Allow for expression of political views from members of society who' views may otherwise not be heard, i.e.: Aboriginal Theatre.
- Can lead to innovation and inspiration of new political and philosophical movements and can act as catalysts for social change.
- May be beneficial economically, see Australia's relationship with the American film industry. Hell, LOOK AT THE AMERICAN FILM INDUSTRY.
Also, the arts are a source of enjoyment and pleasure.
