Opinions are divided on whether artists, musicians, and poets should or should not be provided financial support by the authorities. Both viewpoints are justifiable, but I lean towards the former.
It is understandable why some believe that financing and subsidizing artistic fields would be a waste of money. A key rationale is that there are more pressing issues that need addressing nowadays than spending on arts. For instance, nations where unemployment and poverty are rife are in dire need of funding to remedy such problems and raise living standards. Compared to these urgent needs, allocating money to artistic products does seem like an unworthy cause.
However, I contend that investments in artistic fields are not at all wasteful. This is predicated on the assumption that the economic contribution of arts is colossal and growing. Songs, movies and, in a handful of countries, art exhibitions generate enormous sums that amount to billions of dollars. At the same time, they create demand for derivative products like fan merchandise and theme parks- businesses that are proved to be no less profitable than the sale of the intellectual property that inspires them. Financial gains aside, arts should receive government funding for their role in preserving cultural identity and heritage. Since the dawn of civilization, the zeitgeist and important narratives of each period have been richly portrayed through various art forms, including painting, music, and literature. This significance, associated with the financial contribution of artistic creations, adequately justifies the investments in this domain.
In conclusion, it is irrefutable that the bulk of the state budgets should be allocated to tackle other nations’ problems, but I believe art also deserves the governments’ attention and resources.