Some individuals are of the opinion that the government should invest in artistic disciplines for a better national art culture. Whereas, others believe healthcare and educational services are the fundamentals that mandate expenditures, rather than art. From my perspective, I will describe both sides detailedly below.
Due to the fainted awareness of the young in some nations nowadays, people in authority are promoting the general art which can enrich their residents’ mental health by pouring money in it. Proponents, therefore, argue that this is advantageous by pointing to the rise in cognizance of the public as a key factor. Well invested art forms can be more captivating for the residents, especially the new generation, leading to the overall awareness in the nations’ cultural value that is depicted through art pieces. Being surrounded by a plethora of traditional masterpieces, citizens can develop a sense of responsibility and preservation for their own hometown’s greatness. Moreover, art can be perceived as a mental health aid, through it, people can reduce distress by expressing themselves or just enjoying art works.
Opponents are saying that, on the other hand, investing in art while fundamentals are being ignored results in the loss in interest for mental amelioration. It is undeniable that healthcare and scholastic services are the irreplaceable basis for everyone. As a result, people have to put their mind on them initially before thinking of preserving a kind of ritual. Additionally, without certain
knowledge, individuals naturally cannot recognize the value in art, not even making or preserving them.
In conclusion, although creative activities are considered game changer for expressing cultures and improving mental life, human beings demand maintenance in basic living before preservation in mental life.