A lot of heated debates have centered on who is supposed to support creative arts. Some people believe that the government should subsidize creative arts, while others hold that they should be financed by other sponsors. This essay will examine both views and try to reach a conclusion.
On the one hand, some people subscribe to the view that the government should invest in creative arts. In their opinion, creative arts contribute enormously to the conservation of local culture. In fact, artists often portray contemporary social issues such as inequality, racism, war and lifestyles of people from all walks of life, which allows viewers or readers to get an insight into the culture, tradition, custom or even the lifestyle of a country without getting a direct exposure to these things. A telling example of this is William Shakespeare’s famous romantic play “Romeo and Juliet”, which depicts a world surrounding social prejudice and violence and “Les Miserables” – a moving well-known novel written by Victor Hugo. These masterpieces have such a widespread influence that their values and lessons continue to be passed down to this day. Another argument in favor of the idea that the government should subsidize creative arts is that the development of creative arts can stimulate the local economy. For instance, famous celebrities and music concerts attract thousands of participants, which generate job opportunities for many local residents. In addition, some blockbusters draw thousands of movie fans to filming sites. Therefore, creative arts promote the nation’s tourism development and expand national identity to the global market.
On the other hand, people who hold that creative artists should be financed by other sponsors have a number of compelling ideas to justify their opinion. They claim that the removal of state subsidy for artists will encourage them to work more productively or creatively to thrive in their career. Without the support from the government, artists may try their best to create excellent art work in order to attract investment sources, which will benefit artists with a life-long career. Take an example of Dinh Anh Lan, who manages an art shop. Thanks to good operation and viral art works, her art shop attracts hundreds of customers monthly without financial support from the authorities. Another argument in favor of the idea that creative arts should be funded by other sponsors is that the abolition of state subsidy for artists will relieve the burden on the state budget. Social welfare should be prioritized for essential public services such as education, healthcare or infrastructure, rather than being allocated to artistic projects that can be supported by the private sector.
In conclusion, this essay has examined two schools of thought about who has the responsibility to fund creative arts. Personally, I am convinced that while government support plays a vital role in preserving cultural heritage and strengthening national identity, private investment is equally vital in motivating artists to innovate and produce high-quality work. Therefore, a balanced approach in which both the government and other sponsors share the responsibility would be the most beneficial and sustainable solution.