Some people argued that authorities should allocate all the resources on arts such as painting and music as they enhance the community, while others believe that public funds must be used for most important fields like healthcare and education. In my view, funding in arts outweighs other practical areas as it preserves the culture identity although investing in healthcare and education generates more income.
On the one hand, it can be argued that funding in public welfare service generates revenue. As investing for research purpose in different sectors yield new discoveries. Moreover, graduated students from different education sectors which was funded previously by states will work for their country in coming years. Thus, graduates contribute will work as a long term national source of income for authorities. For instance, chinese government provides different types of scholarships and low interest rate loan for students who are from poor background in order to pay this they will work in public service for few years.
On the other hand, critics believe allocating funds on arts preserves culture identity. As many cultural identity are vanishing because lack of attention given by government. So that, if authorities give time and money for this sector more individuals interest on arts will grow which leads the conservation of local culture. Furthermore more people joining this sector means passing of culture from older generations to new generations as these recent recorded documents will become part of history in future. For example, Nepal government provides fund yearly to local group of Bhaktapur to organize biska jatra festival so that this festival is going on from centuries.
In conclusion , investing on public service welfare generates revenue whereas funding in arts safeguards the culture heritage. In my view, preserving the culture plays a vital role in country than growing economy.