The question of whether government should provide stipends to artists sparks a contentious debate. While some people argue in favor of artists, claiming that they promote cultural values worldwide, others contend that government should spend on human development rather than wasting money on artists. In my opinion, striking a balance between the two is imperative.
Those who advocate for the financial assistance of the artists substantiate their claims by valid arguments. As artists promote cultural values, traditions and morals of the country throughout the world, it is indispensable for the government to provide artists with much needed financial assistance. Additionally, artists should be given considerable benefits from the government because the entertainment industry has a potential to significantly contribute to economy. For example, Hollywood industry contributes billions of dollars to western economies every year.
Conversely, detractors reject the above-discussed view and believe that government must solely focus on human development. To improve the living standard of masses, the government must spend funds on education, health, and infrastructure. While rejecting the artists stipends, these people reckon that the human development acts a back bone of the country. As per United Nations report, every dollar spent on human development by the government has a potential return of 10 dollars to the national exchequer. Thus, based on these arguments, people oppose artists’ financial assistance.
In my view, it is indispensable to strike a balance between the two. While focusing on human development is key to success for any country, artists also hold significant importance for a country, as they represent their country world-wide. Thus, a healthy balance is essential to garner maximum benefits.