In terms of culture and art supporting question there are two opinions. For one thing, some people say it should be financed by government, for another thing other people believe that government funding are not necessary. Both opinions have pros and cons.
From one side, it is well known fact that culture and art were always supported by state. It seems to be logical, as the influence of culture and historical meaning and importance of arts are obvious. Everyone knows the Great Chinese Wall or Tadj Mahal in India. Many future generations can benefit from such government support of masterpieces. It will make the country and its people with their culture famous all over the world, helping to attract more tourists and generate income.
It’s hard to deny such outcomes.
From another side, there are more important expenditures where government’s funds are more expected. For example, social sphere, education, children’s care, medicine, pensioners, etc. All these spheres require government’s care and support regularly allover the year. While art and culture are believed to be not so meaningful. To support this argument some individuals say that if the piece of art or culture is a real masterpiece, its author will always be supported by sponsors. If sponsors are not found, then no reason to spend government’s money on it as it worth nothing. Such arguments also have a right to take place.
In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages in both views As for me, I do believe that it should be supported because there are spheres of mental development in each society that are more valuable then funds spent on it and which requires attention and due care from state’s side.