Nations spend big amount of money to artists, and some argue that this resources should not be thrown out because they could be used in other areas. While some believe that there is no difference between giving money to art and using sources for nothing, I think that governments are responsible to provide money to their artists.
On the one hand, some citizens advocate the idea of using money for the public benefit rather than spending on art. People are expected to better services from their country, and improve conditions of citizens’ lives. Money is the main driver to develop services such as transportation or health care because new vehicles and equipments are very expensive. For example, in many countries theathers were sold because nations want to create resources for other needs. However, I believe that art is most important assets of humanity, and if we protect and support the artist, they could not find any money to do their job.
On the other hand, countries want to support the artist to provide better artistic activities for public. Art should be accessible by every part of the society since it is a known way of happiness. If states do not finance artists, it could conduct by private sector, and they generally prefer to repeat the most watching shows again and again. For example, in Turkey, thanks to government support, citizens could watch many classical play for less than two dollars and i believe it is increasing people’s point of life view.
In conclusion, cutting off art budget and spending this money on public services does not solve service problems and for this reason it is more important to invest money to art.