As the demand for art products is increasing, there has been a gap in the consumption of traditional and mass-produced arts and crafts. Specificially, the sales of the former are consistently declining. While some people believe that the government should provide financial assistance for traditional artisans, others argue the survival of traditional art products should be determined by market forces.
Governmental assistance plays a crucial role in sustaining traditional arts and crafts. These products are not only decoratively functional but also represent cultural values of a nation. Commonly, the production of a traditional product is more time-consuming due to being handcrafted, which eventually leads to a higher price than a mass-produced alternative. This deterministic price gap deters low and middle-income customers from the traditional art market. At this point, the government’s support, such as subsidizing certaining traditional arts or providing grants, make these products more affordable to customers from different income brackets as well as motivate artisans.
Another argument is, however, in favor of a fair competition between traditional and mass-produced art products. The advantage of mass production lies in its ability of producing similar to identical arts and crafts at a much more lower cost and labor, which is enabled by the assistance of automation. While one may argue that there is always a discrepancy in quality, the consumers are not always able to recognize subtle differences, thus opting for more affordable alternatives. In fact, the market segmentation by factors such as income or an appreciation of art quality is sufficient to promote an effective competition between traditional and mass-produced products.
In conclusion, while governmental support is essential in promoting the consumption of traditional arts and crafts, a fair competition, enabled by personal preferences is more appropriate in the long run.