Some individuals are of the opinion that governments should provide financial support to artists. In contrast, others think that it is not worth to do it. Although both schools of thought have some advantages, I agree more with the latter perspective.
On the one hand, giving monetary assistance to the arts could be worthless.
Plenty of people think that art activities are not fundamental needs of human beings, and some street painters or singers should not be subsidized by the government. Instead, the authority should spend more money on the more important fields such as education, medicine, and facilities for deprived regions rather than on the arts. These days, there are still several undeveloped countries and areas in the world where children cannot access proper education, people cannot afford to go to the hospital and their accommodations are also downgraded significantly.
On the other hand, there are numerous benefits of supporting money for artists, musicians, and poets. One of the key advantages is that it could preserve some national cultural heritage. In today’s world, a large number of types of cultural arts or music such as folk music, documentary films, and paintings tend to disappear in the memories of modern people. This is due to the increase in the types of arts like cinematic films, hip-hop music, and murals, which have become popular in a short period of time and then quickly become old-fashioned. For this reason, it is vital to conserve the intangible cultural heritage by allocating the government’s budget for the artists to organize art events that people in the country can enjoy and learn more about their region’s cultures. As a result, the cultural heritages may be preserved throughout the time and foreigners could know more about them.
In conclusion, despite some mixed opinions on providing monetary support to artists, musicians, and poets, I personally believe that the government should assist them in preserving the cultural arts of the country.