In contemporary discourse, there is a debate about whethere the state should fund artist and their endeavors or not. The proponent of this notion claim that it is econamically advantagous while its the proponents say it is only a financial burden. In this article I will discuss both views as well as explaining why I believe becoming a patron of art can significantly benefit a government’s treasury.
On one hand, some people argue that by supporting talented individuals in various artistic areas such as music, governments will help grow the entertainment industry. Naturally, the more investments we do on any given artform the more avenues of opportunity will be available for the artist in that particular field to explore and enhance their craft. For instance, state funded galleries can help painters present and sell their work to their target audiance more easily which provides financial insentive for painters to pursue their career more vigurously. Consequently, the growth of entertainment industry will lead to an increase on the taxrevenue generated from it spontaneously.
On the other hand, critics claim that only an small, insignificant number of art related businesse will ever become profitable, therefore, making investment on that area highly irrational. For instance, according to the Oxfors univrsity, only 0.1 percent of those who study acting in that university will become professional acters or actress while others have to seek employment in other fields. However, I must state that despite the fact that most artist wont become financialy successful, the minority who do will experience an enormous financial gain. The american movie industry can serve as shining example which estimated to be worth around 18 billion dollors.
Thus, in light of the arquments presented above, one can conclude that by fascilitating financial help to artist, societies can help grow art-related industries to gigantic proportions which can result in an increase in the state income from taxes levied from those industries.