Arts in IELTS Writing Task 2: Agree or Disagree Essay Samples

Art-related essay topics in the IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 often explore the role and value of art in society, education, and culture. Common subtopics include funding for the arts, art versus science in schools, the importance of public art, preserving traditional art forms, and whether art should be judged objectively or subjectively.

Find useful IELTS vocabulary for art here

Use Benchmark IELTS Writing Correction service to write error-free IELTS Essays, Letters & Reports.

Essay Topics

Topic 1: Is government spending on the arts a waste of money?
Topic 2: Should artists get government funding due to low incomes?

Task

Some people think that the government is wasting money on the arts and that this money could be better spent elsewhere.To what extent do you agree with this view?

How to approach the essay:

Break down the question by identifying the debate: should government funds be spent on the arts or redirected to other essential services like healthcare or education? In the introduction, clearly state your position (agree/disagree or partial).

Arguments for Funding the Arts	Counterarguments & Response
• Preserves and connects cultural heritage with modern society • Inspires younger generations to explore history and values • Improves quality of life through stress relief and aesthetic environments • Public art (e.g., sculptures) promotes community engagement	• Critics argue healthcare should be prioritized due to life- threatening diseases • Example: AIDS still has no cure, highlighting the need for more medical funding • However, healthcare already receives substantial government funding • Resource reallocation to arts is reasonable and justified

Model Answer

For the past few decades, an increasing number of countries have been investing more money in the arts than in other fields. This trend raises the question of whether such financial allocations are justified. While I acknowledge the pressing needs in areas such as healthcare, I believe that the arts play a crucial role in society and deserve government support.

One compelling reason for funding the arts is their ability to bridge the past with the present. Several works of art encapsulate the political systems, religious beliefs, and historical contexts of their time. When younger generations engage with these artworks, they are often inspired to delve deeper into shared histories. For instance, a sculpture of Confucius in a public space not only reflects the cultural attire and materials of its time but also ignites curiosity, thereby creating a stronger connection between the past and the present. Furthermore, investing in the arts enhances the quality of life for residents. In today’s high-pressure world, aesthetically pleasing public spaces offer a welcome escape from daily stress.

On the other hand, some medical professionals argue that preserving human life should take precedence over funding the arts. They believe more resources should be given to medical advancements, as many patients face life-threatening conditions. For example, despite advancements, diseases like AIDS remain without a cure. However, a closer look at public spending reveals that the healthcare sector has received a substantial portion over the years. Therefore, it is reasonable to reassess and redistribute resources elsewhere.

In conclusion, while I recognize the need for continued investment in essential services like healthcare, the arts are equally vital for their cultural significance, which cannot be overlooked or replaced.

Essay Questions

Essay Question: Some people think that the government is wasting money on the arts and that this money could be better spent elsewhere. To what extent do you agree with this view?Introduction
Clarity: Yes, the topic is clearly introduced.
Thesis: The writer’s stance is clear—supports arts funding while acknowledging other sectors’ needs.Body Paragraphs
Main Ideas (Pros/Cons):
• Arts connect past and present, improve public well-being.
• Opposing view: healthcare should take priority.
• Rebuttal: healthcare already receives sufficient funding.Coherence:
• Balanced structure: one paragraph supports arts, one addresses opposing view.
• Transitions are smooth and ideas are logically sequenced.Conclusion
Summary: Reaffirms support for the arts and highlights the need for balanced investment across sectors.Vocabulary & Grammar
High-Level Vocabulary:
• Encapsulate (summarize or represent)
• Redistribute (reallocate or reassign)
• Substantial (significant or considerable)
• Precedence (priority or importance)
• Aesthetically pleasing (visually attractive)Academic Phrases:
• This trend raises the question…
• It is reasonable to reassess…
• Equally vital for their cultural significance…Complex Sentences:
• For instance, a sculpture of Confucius in a public space not only reflects the cultural attire and materials of its time but also ignites curiosity, thereby creating a stronger connection between past and present.
• However, a closer look at public spending reveals that the healthcare sector has received a substantial portion over the years.

Task

Most artists earn low salaries and should therefore receive funding from the government in order for them to continue with their work. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

How to approach the question:

Break down the question by identifying the claim: artists earn low salaries and need government funding. Decide your stance—do you agree or disagree?

Arguments for Government Funding	Counterarguments (Author’s Viewpoint)
• Artists often earn less than professionals in tech or science • Other fields yield more tangible benefits to society • Artists mainly contribute entertainment, not innovation	• Many artists (e.g., actors, musicians) earn very high incomes • Artists thrive through private earnings and fan support • Government funds should support sectors with broader societal impact

Model Answer

There is no doubt that the income of artists is a topic of heated debate in contemporary society. However, the pressing question remains: do these artists genuinely require government subsidies to sustain their professionsIn my opinion, while some artists face financial challenges, they generally do not need government subsidies, as many can thrive through private earnings and public support without relying on government funding.

To begin with, it is essential to recognize the reasons behind the call for government funding for artists. In today’s society, artists often receive relatively modest salaries compared to other professions. Proponents of this view argue that emerging fields, such as technology and scientific research, yield substantial benefits for both communities and governments hence these fields are more deserving of financial support. In contrast, artists primarily contribute to entertainment, and it is rare to hear of them inventing something that significantly enhances people’s lives.

However, I disagree with the notion that artists are poorly paid. In many countries, they are among the highest earners compared to other professions. For instance, actors and musicians often command exorbitant fees, with some individuals earning upwards of one million dollars for a single performance. Moreover, a significant portion of their income comes from their dedicated fan base and audience. As a result, many artists can thrive without relying on government funding.

In conclusion, I believe pursuing a career in the arts can lead to a prosperous life in today’s world. It is right that governments have ceased the distribution of financial support to artists, redirecting their focus toward other critical sectors that yield tangible benefits for society as a whole.

Essay Question:
Most artists earn low salaries and should therefore receive funding from the government in order for them to continue with their work. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Introduction
Clarity: The topic is clearly introduced, discussing the debate on whether artists need government funding due to their income.
Thesis: The writer clearly states their stance: they disagree with the idea that artists need government subsidies, as many can succeed through private earnings and public support.

Body Paragraphs
Main Ideas (Pros/Cons):

Pros (Government funding for artists): Artists often have modest salaries compared to other professions; emerging sectors like technology and research are more deserving of financial support.

Cons (Disagreement): Many artists, especially in high-earning fields like acting and music, earn significantly more than other professions, and rely on fan support. They do not need government funding.
Coherence: The essay is logically organized, with clear development of the viewpoint. The argument against government funding is effectively counterposed with the opposing view and clearly stated. Transitions are clear.

Conclusion
Summary: The conclusion effectively restates the writer’s position against government funding for artists, emphasizing that many artists can thrive without such support. It also briefly touches on the broader social importance of focusing government funds elsewhere.

Vocabulary & Grammar
High-Level Vocabulary:

• Subsidies (financial support)
• Exorbitant (excessively high)
• Modest (relatively low)
• Redirecting (changing focus)

Academic Phrases:

• “In my opinion”
• “In contrast”
• “It is right that”

Complex Sentences:

• “Proponents of this view argue that emerging fields, such as technology and scientific research, yield substantial benefits for both communities and governments, hence these fields are more deserving of financial support.”
• “Moreover, a significant portion of their income comes from their dedicated fan base and audience.”