Nowadays, people tend to consider that the individuals employed in art sector are supposed to receive financial assistance from the government, while other people find it inefficient to use state budget for such purpose. This essay will discuss the both sides of this matter.
On one hand, artists are expected to be receiving full assistance from the state owing to the fact that the amount of the salary they are paid is not competitive enough at a global level. Let’s take Mongolia as an example. There has been a drastic rise in the number of artistic people facing severe burden to give up their positions due to low financial security, which is leading them to pursue different career paths. What is more, singers, actors, and other people working in the sector are the ones that spread energies, exhilaration as well as the motivation to the lives of whole human race. Consequently, people feel inspired, which makes their days brightful and gives the opportunity to live ambitiously. Without government support, it will definitely continue as it is expected.
From the other perspective, some claim providing artists with extra funds doesn’t play a significant role, eventually causing improper expenditure in the nation’s finance. Instead, the money should be prioritized for much more vital services such as renovating infrastructures, roads, and along with reducing the pollution in the atmosphere, which will be greater benefit for the country. Therefore, supporting artists is viewed as a luxury than its necessity.
Taking both views into consideration, the latter standpoint outweighs the previous one as it reflects utilitarian practice into reality. For this reason, I am of the strong opinion that it is unnecessary to support artists since the government budget needs inevitably to be spent on more essential projects such as infrastructure, environmental issues, and other humanitarian projects for the sake of the citizens’ convenience.