dead poets society

The importance of art, especially during challenging economic periods, is often debated. While some argue that artworks are indispensable, others believe they can be replaced by more practical necessities. This essay will discuss both perspectives and offer my personal view.

On the one hand, it is understandable why some people perceive art as a luxury that can be sacrificed in difficult times. Firstly, artworks are often associated with the upper classes, serving as symbols of wealth and status rather than fulfilling basic human needs. As a result, during economic hardships, these artworks may be sold to prioritize more essential goods. Furthermore, the costs involved in maintaining art exhibitions in museums and galleries can be exorbitant. This may cause dissatisfaction among those struggling financially, as the funds could be redirected toward more pressing needs like education or healthcare.

On the other hand, art is irreplaceable due to its profound cultural and emotional value. Throughout history, countless artworks have been created by talented artists, offering inspiration and hope, especially in turbulent times. For instance, Picasso's "Guernica," painted in 1937, became a symbol of anti-war sentiment, reflecting the destructive impact of warfare on civilians. Moreover, art plays a vital role in preserving and celebrating human history and culture. Without it, we would lose touch with our roots, historical milestones, and the achievements of our ancestors. Therefore, I believe that art is essential and should not be sacrificed, even in tough times.

In conclusion, while some may argue that art is unnecessary due to its perceived extravagance and cost, its role in expressing human emotion and preserving civilization makes it irreplaceable. The existence of art, in my opinion, is vital and should be protected.