In many countries, some people argue about authorities funding arts and cultural activities, and these subsidizes could be spent on other areas, such as health and education. Advantages of these fundings cannot outweigh disadvantages due to arguments below.
Advantages of this. If government spends money on development of adeptness and cultural activities in a country, this can improve core values of civilians. For example, state gives money and builds an art museum or historical statue, it can attract more people to be interested about their history if it is a statue or arts, meaning if it is a museum, and this concern could make civilians more well-informed.
First disadvantage of it is discontentment, because of the indifference between citizens about cultural development in their country. When authorities give money on improvement another areas except health care and education, this is where discontent appears, because people are more concerned about their live conditions and if it meets standards of life. Due to this, if money from their taxes is spent on something like arts improvement, some people will be not satisfied and start complaining about it.
Second disadvantage is usefulness. Nobody can deny that culture growth is a significant part of the countries formation, but it cannot compete with other areas. Taking education as an example, while culture is more directed to improvement peoples internal values and it is not fatal if it is not developed well, education is the most important thing in peoples life and of course always needs improvement. Due to this, cultural improvement is not that beneficial as other areas.
In conclusion, subsiding art and culture cannot be that benefical and crucial as other sectors because of the arguments above.