Society with heritage in ‘Arts’ are considered to be culturally sophisticated and advanced. However, with the recent financial crisis the lavishness and expense by government on arts should be questionable. The taxpayer’s money should be spent practically rather than on cultural endeavours. Firstly, not all citizens appreciate art and secondly, the employment opportunities should take precedence.
Art can bring quality into one’s life only if your are interested. People of society, interested in art are in minority because they prefer other activities over arts, take football for an example. Across the globe people watch matches in stadiums rather than buying tickets to see the sculptures and art. This fact makes it impossible that the art brings quality to life in the society.
Secondly, the resources diverted to such projects come from public and should be spent in a way that benefits them. Commissioning and purchasing art would be an insult to the taxpayer who endure the high rate of unemployment, such as country like, India. This country historically suffers from unemployment, yet the government of India commissioned a huge sculpture called ‘Statue of Unity’, which later becomes tallest statue in the world as well. But financing the job creating project would have undoubtedly been more practical to the local community.
To encapsulate, It is just an unjust affirmation that art brings quality into one’s life and i agree that the money should be spent elsewhere. This is because art expenditure involved should benefit the majority group of people rather than a minority. Ideally the future, government will recognise the fact that the quality of life derives from a decent opportunity but a sculpture or art.