Art, History and Culture
Some people feel that cultural traditions are ruined when people use them to make money from tourists. Others claim that using these traditions as money-making ventures is the only way to save them. In my opinion, both views are true to a certain extent.
To begin with, many traditional customs are modified for commercialization, and eventually lose their originality and value. For example, Vietnamese traditional dances such as the lion dance, which were traditionally performed only by martial artists during special occasions, are now often poorly performed by amateurs at tourist sites across the country. Such changes not only give foreign visitors a false impression, but can also make the dance less meaningful to the local people. Also, many traditionally sacred sites are heavily damaged by the irresponsible behaviors of tourists. For instance, a well-known Youtuber named Logan Paul visited Japan and filmed himself dumping a bag of coins into a sacred well, where people often drop coins for luck, and did permanent damage to one of Japan’s most famous iconic traditions.
On the other hand, there are several reasons why making money from cultural traditions is the only way to protect them. Firstly, the revenue could be used for the preservation of such traditions. For example, many people in Bat Trang village in Vietnam make their living from selling traditional ceramic products, and thus are able to continue one of the oldest traditions in Vietnam. Secondly, by putting cultural traditions on public display, the government could heighten people’s awareness of preserving these traditions. For instance, the Vietnamese government has built several museums around the country that solely exhibit examples of ethnic minority cultures in an attempt to protect cultural values without affecting the lives of these ethnic people, yet successfully gathering much public attention and support.
In conclusion, using cultural traditions as money-making attractions has both positive and negative impacts on the preservation of such traditions.
It is sometimes argued that tourists from overseas should be charged more than local residents to visit important sites and monuments. I completely disagree with this idea.
The argument in favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would be that cultural or historical attractions often depend on state subsidies to keep them going, which means that the resident population already pays money to these sites through the tax system. However, I believe this to be a very short-sighted view. Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country with the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, including food, souvenirs, accommodation and travel. The governments and inhabitants of every country should be happy to subsidise important tourist sites and encourage people from the rest of the world to visit them.
If travellers realised that they would have to pay more to visit historical and cultural attractions in a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not to go to that country on holiday. To take the UK as an example, the tourism industry and many related jobs rely on visitors coming to the country to see places like Windsor Castle or Saint Paul’s Cathedral. These two sites charge the same price regardless of nationality, and this helps to promote the nation’s cultural heritage. If overseas tourists stopped coming due to higher prices, there would be a risk of insufficient funding for the maintenance of these important buildings.
In conclusion, I believe that every effort should be made to attract tourists from overseas, and it would be counterproductive to make them pay more than local residents.
Museums and art galleries have played a major role in preserving and conveying historical values for a long time. While many people suggest that they should focus purely on displaying works that represent the nation’s culture and history, others with contradicting views affirm that international works are also of great worth. Personally, I think both viewpoints are equally valid.
On the one hand, there are reasons why it is believed that artefacts and works of national value should be given priority. Firstly, museums and art galleries should be places that honour indigenous history and culture. By going to these museums and galleries, people will gain a deeper understanding of their nation, along with the golden ages and hard times that the country has been through. The exhibitions therefore serve an educational purpose as they instil patriotism and promote a sense of national pride in the citizens of that country. Apart from that, such places also help to preserve traditional and historical values. In the 21st century, many minority ethnic groups are in grave danger of losing their culture, and therefore, the display of their works and artefacts will help to preserve their culture and the cultural diversity of a nation.
On the other hand, showing international works of art has several merits. Works from other parts of the world help to diversify the content of museums and art galleries. Admittedly, even though the value of museums and art galleries cannot be denied, their failure in adopting changes and updating collections has discouraged people from visiting these places. For that reason, international works will add appeal and aid museums and galleries in attracting more visitors. Furthermore, if museums display international works, people will have more chance to gain knowledge and insight into other cultures as well.
In conclusion, the ultimate goal of museums and galleries is to spread knowledge and wonder far and wide. Therefore, my suggestion is that local artefacts and works should be prioritised, while those of other nations can still be exhibited but in separate museums and galleries.
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, many people oppose investing in cultural activities because there are more serious issues to address. The deterioration of transport infrastructure in many cities, for example, is the major reason for the increased number of traffic accidents. Using money for the construction of new roads and highways would bring about immediate effects and save thousands of lives. In addition, nations across the globe are facing many environmental problems that require urgent attention, namely pollution and natural resource depletion. National leaders, therefore, should join forces with scientists to combat these issues by allocating financial resources to the development of renewable and environmentally friendly sources of energy. There is no point in spending money on cultural activities before ensuring a safe and clean environment for citizens.
Advocates of art and culture, on the other hand, argue that cultural activities play an important role in people’s lives. Cultural events, like Tet holiday or Christmas, are occasions when family members gather together, which helps to strengthen the sense of family and community and further enriches people’s lives. Moreover, funding these activities helps to preserve cultural diversity, especially in such a globalised world where so much culture is being lost and forgotten. The Vietnamese government, for instance, has constructed many museums that solely exhibit examples of ethnic minority culture, whose populations are decreasing at an alarming rate.
In conclusion, I believe that cultural activities are of great significance and require attention and financial support from governments. However, it is also the government’s duty to address issues in transportation and the environment to protect citizens’ lives and maintain a healthy environment for people to live.
In this modern era of continual scientific and technological advancement, artists are still gaining a lot of respect from people the world over. There are a number of things about life that the arts can teach us that science and technology fail to.
Many forms of art, especially literature, can deliver messages about the appreciation of what we have in life as well as life itself. Hundreds of literary works depict misery, misfortune and sorrow that still exist in life today, and this sends a strong message to those who do not appreciate their lives. “The Goldfinch”, for example, which narrates a story about the miserable life of the main character after the unfortunate death of his mother makes us wonder whether we have become heartless toward our own loved ones. I doubt that there are any technologies in the world that could manage to convey such a powerful message.
Arts teach us to cherish the beauty of culture and is the fuel for our spiritual lives. This is extremely important in a world where science and technology seem to fade our belief in the gravity of culture in daily life. The connection between art and culture is boundless, and traditional music and ancient paintings can remind us of where we came from and who we are. That is to say, our cultural identity is preserved in various forms of art.
Although science and technology advance our understanding of all things and better our lives, arts can touch us to a much deeper extent, help us value what we have, and remind us of the significance of our culture.
Some people argue that we no longer remember the original meaning of festivals, and that most of us treat them as opportunities to have fun. While I agree that enjoyment seems to be the priority during festival times, I do not agree that people have forgotten what these festivals mean.
On the one hand, religious and traditional festivals have certainly become times for celebration. In the UK, Christmas is a good example of a festival period when people are most concerned with shopping, giving and receiving presents, decorating their homes and enjoying traditional meals with their families. Most people look forward to Christmas as a holiday period, rather than a time to practise religion. Similar behaviour can be seen during non-religious festivals, such as Bonfire Night. People associate this occasion with making fires, watching firework displays, and perhaps going to large events in local parks; in other words, enjoyment is people’s primary goal.
However, I disagree with the idea that the underlying meaning of such festivals has been forgotten. In UK primary schools, children learn in detail about the religious reasons for celebrating Christmas, Easter and a variety of festivals in other religions. For example, in late December, children sing Christmas songs which have a religious content, and they may even perform nativity plays telling the story of Jesus’ birth. Families also play a role in passing knowledge of religious festivals’ deeper significance on to the next generation. The same is true for festivals that have a historical background, such as Bonfire Night or Halloween, in the sense that people generally learn the stories behind these occasions at an early age.
In conclusion, although people mainly want to enjoy themselves during festivals, I believe that they are still aware of the reasons for these celebrations.