It is believed that the government should support artists in fields of music, art or literature, however, others advocate that this is a squander of funds. Though both schools of thought have merit, I lean more towards the idea that governmental funds for artists are acceptable with careful planning and legitimate rationales.
On the one hand, there are rationales as to why some people indicate that governmental support for artists is reasonable. Firstly, arts are vital to a human’s mental wellness. Arts, both performing and visual, are created mainly because of the need for relaxation and emotional expression. Moreover, performing arts in public concerts, and cultural festivals are valuable for spiritual connections in communities. Secondly, arts is an effective way to preserve and promote cultures. Artists preserve national identity and promote their culture to the world through arts like traditional music and crafts that reflect their nation’s history and values, and governmental fundings encourage them to keep up with their jobs. For instance, many singers are now promoting their unique culture through music and have been receiving a lot of support from the government and the nation like Hoang Thuy Linh’s musical discography, or Bad Bunny’s performance in Super Bowl 2026. This advocates that supporting artists is investing in community union, soft power, tourism and the country’s international images.
On the other hand, opponents of the previous view claim that governmental support for artists is a funding misuse. It is easy to overspend when funding for arts, this can cause the budget to become imbalanced and arts should not be the ultimate priority to spend when there are also healthcare, poverty issues, and education to look after. Especially in the case of developing countries, where resources are limited and lacking in many fields. Not to mention, most famous artists are self-sustainable, and there are countless parties willing to fund them if they see the potential. When their reputation is big enough, the artist can seek funding from sponsorships, crowdfunding, or private investors; this helps boost competitiveness, creativity and motivations. For instance, the Idol industry in South Korea is mostly funded by private investors like the artist’s agency or sponsorships from brands varied from fashion to food. Those idols rarely get governmental funding unless they are in a project that involves governmental support or national concerts. This indicates that, even with or without the governmental funds, artists can still keep their jobs going, and satisfy the subjective and objective needs.
In conclusion, it is understandable that the government provides funds to artists, however, if this is considered the main source of funding and overly prioritized, it can become a misuse. Governmental funds for arts should be strategically considered and come with a solid reason.