In recent years, various forms of arts including music, painting and poetry has unprecedentedly developed. This has led to the prevailing stance stating that artists ought to be supported by the government, with opponents of this assertion declaring that this is a waste of money. In this essay, I will elaborate on both arguments before presenting my personal perspective.
On the one hand, it is indisputable that artists play a significant role in maintaining national traditions. To elucidate, investment in arts fosters the development of cultural identity, which allows indigenous people and international travellers to become well-integrated into the long-standing culture of a country. This would strengthen national cultural values and impede cultural assimilation. By the same token, funding for creators to enhance their artistry can enhance the domestic economy. As global tourism rapidly develops, museums and heritages where artworks are on display would benefit from the proliferation of travellers around the globe. This would, simultaneously, create more opportunities for employment and lower the rate of poverty.
On the other hand, there are multiple convincing reasons reinforcing the idea that supporting artists is a misuse of money. For one, government’s expenditure should be spent on fields that are of greater importance. Elaborating on this, investing in technology and education can hinder the occurrence of higher criminal rates and deprivation. Providing capital for artificial intelligence, robots and educational institutes would immensely enhance people’s standards of living.
To recapitulate, both sides have their own validities and I stand by a middle-ground approach.