An increasing number of people believe that authorities ought to support creative individuals, while others assert that artists should make their own money and that the revenue should be prioritized on other important services instead. In my view, the latter perspective holds greater merit for several compelling reasons.
Proponents of the belief that artists should not be supported financially by the governing bodies present multiple reasons. One primary reason is that these funds should be prioritized for other crucial sectors, such as healthcare, providing opportunity to people with financially disadvantaged background, and scientific research. For example, generate employment for the poor, and create a invest more money on scientists. As a result, this can elevate living standards and foster economic growth. An equally significant reason is that investing in artists might be a minefield for the governments. That’s mainly because supervising such investments can be challenging. As the quality of their work will not improve.
Nevertheless, I firmly uphold the notion that artists should be supported financially by the government. One reason is that the creativity can broaden people’s horizon significantly. Moreover, creative people have more chances to bolster career prospects, as the creativity foster critical thinking. Another reason is that the art can attract tourists from all over the worlds. In contemporary society, many people travel to admire works of art. As a result, this can improve economy dramatically.
In conclusion, investing for the artists can be risky and feel like throwing money down the drain, whereas this can entail more benefits, such as improving economy, and individuals’ outlook.