Many people claim that the government’s actions towards capitalizing art are irrational in terms of the modern economy, focused on the public services. I’m inclined to think it is significant for the government to invest money into the culture in order to save it and popularize it, but consider the economic and political circumstances.
First and foremost, the funding of art makes a significant contribution to preservation of the cultural heritage. As spiritual evolution stems from cultural development, it is crucial for the government to support national identity and external representation. For instance, financing recreation of substantial buildings in the region’s history may consolidate national power and patriotism.
Secondly, investments in culture are significant for developing society’s emotional intelligence. In other words, promoting art across the younger generation might establish the fundamental human values, nurturing emotional intellect. Furthermore, citizens’ emotional stability could be beneficial for the government due to the less strong reaction to economic crises.
Nevertheless, public services provide people with essential safety and comfort, which is more important than cultural development. Considering the fact that human life depends on police, fire services and healthcare clearly questions the relevance of saving art. Furthermore, the government’s primary goal is to secure the population and their natural rights, shifting the priorities from emotional intelligence to physical and mental safety.
In conclusion, investment in art is a major factor in strengthening national identity and society’s intellect in order to support economic stability. However, the government’s priorities between art and public services depend on the current political situation. This is why I believe funding cultural development is meaningful, but is not the primary investment focus.