One school of thought holds that government should allocate funds to all types of artists such as painters, musicians, and poets, while others advocate the ideas that this is a wasted investment. Personally, I would lean toward the latter one for the following reasons.
On the one hand, it is understandable why people would argue that national authorities should channel budgets towards artists. Chief of these is that they play a significant role in maintaining societal values and fostering creativity. By providing finance to these people, governments can ensure the diversion of art genres, which contributes to the unique aspects of each country. Furthermore, investment in the arts can drive the economic growth by creating more jobs for individuals. As there are a wide range of jobs involve arts, it will certainly attract a significant number of individuals, thereby avoiding unemployment rate.
However, I would still advocate that it is totally wasted of providing finance to these sectors. Firstly, there are more critical aspects of nations should be concerned rather than art. For instance, in healthcare sector, numerous people still struggle to their ailments and diseases, thereby investing in this can reducing the total number of infected cases. Secondly, artists can achieve success and make a fortune through their commercial products and advertising contract. Artists can do this without governmental supports, as they have flair for these subjects, which assist govenrments in saving budget for other purposes.
In conclusion, while there are some arguments contend that governments should allocate funds to artists. I would believe that it is totally waste of money.