Art is an effective way to improve the quality of life. However, the debate about whether governments should invest in more practical fields instead of art has gained significant attention over the years. Personally, I believe allocating funds to non – art-related things provides more significant benefits.
Advocates of artistic expression argue that art acts as a medium for people to showcase their emotions or journeys that are inexpressible using words alone. For example, renowned painter, Vincent van Gogh used art as a means to cope with his mental disorders during his stay in the asylum. Nowadays, museums, funded by governments, are established to protect his works, which also attract millions of tourists every year, subsequently boosting tourism. Besides that, it is contended that art carries historical significance. The government spends money to preserve these artifacts to ensure that cultural heritage and customs can be passed down to future generations.
Despite the aforementioned arguments, I posit that there are many other important fields that require government funding. For example, technological advancement in renewable technology needs the financial support to run trials that are often very expensive. With renewable energy being made possible, it reduces our reliance on fossil fuels, which contribute to greenhouse gas emission, thereby mitigating global warming, a prominent issue nowadays. Besides that, charities that aim to improve the welfare of the impoverished and disadvantageous people must be given precedence over arts to create a harmonious society.
In conclusion, although investing in art-related endeavors is beneficial in some way, governments must prioritize other more pressing needs, like technological advancement and the welfare of its citizens. Nevertheless, the significance of art must not be disregarded and should continue to be appreciated by people worldwide. As the saying goes, “Art is not what you see, but what others see.”