There is an ongoing debate about whether the government should invest in cities and towns’ art and cultures to make them more appealing or not. In my opinion, I strongly agree with the idea that the government should be financially responsible for the preservation and development of local art and cultures due to their impact on both spiritual and economic aspects.
First and foremost, those who believe cultural heritage and art should be invested in argue that it yields significant merits when it comes to enriching local cultures. The reason is that nowadays, in numerous regions, several artistic traditions and cultural heritages are being threatened due to globalization and modernization. Such problems can be prevented by extensive funding to preserve local identity as well as promote artistic appreciation. For example, safeguarding art exhibitions and traditional festivals can help educate the younger generation, whose cultural awareness determines the existence of local traditions. Therefore, funding for the conservation of culture and arts can enhance locals’ spiritual lives.
Furthermore, although there are opinions that government funding should be prioritized for education and healthcare as they bring practical values, allocating money to culture and arts on its own also has economic significance. Having a rich and deep-rooted culture attracts tourists and external investment, which leads to an increase in demand for accommodation, recreational activities, transportation and restaurants. By taking advantage of such demands, local households can raise their income levels as well as gain access to more job opportunities. Hence, it is clear that arts and culture are not just merely a form of entertainment, but also contribute to economic development.
In conclusion, even though there are some advantages of investing in other major sectors, it is preferable that the government should pay for local art and cultures due to their spiritual and economic significance.