In contemporary society, people’s demands have become increasingly diverse. The issue of whether governments should allocate funds on the promotion of the arts or daily necessities has sparked a considerable debate. This essay will critically examine both views and present my own standpoint.
On one hand, proponents who support money should be invested in the arts promotion claim that art plays an integral part in human civilization and cultural diversity. Specifically, the diverse forms of art, including music, paintings, and pottery, provide fertile ground for engaging individuals in their communities. For example, art galleries and exhibitions are the repositories where people collect a bunch of cultural treasures and heritages, allowing people to appreciate the value of the arts. In this case, people may evoke a sense of belonging, further creating a more inclusive and harmonious society. Additionally, reserving art works also generates job opportunities for particular careers such as free-lancer, designer, and street photographer.
On the other hand, opponents contend the views that the government should prioritize investment in addressing imperative issues such as poverty, illiteracy, and global warming. These issues are urgent to be figured out given their correlation with humans’s daily lives. During the COVID-19 pandemics, for instance, investment in the vaccine and medical resources had saved a great number of lives. Consequently, governments should distribute money as individual-oriented rather than put too much effort into preserving non-physical ones.
To conclude, my perspective acknowledges both views but tends more to the former one given that art serves as an iconic mark on human civilization. Particularly in the era where globalization and cultural homogenization have become serious, governments have the responsibility of saving identities by investing money in them.