It is often argued that the state ought to lower investment in the arts so as to devote more money to educational institutions. I disagree with the statement on the grounds that it leads to the disappearance of artistic development, and this trend has a detrimental impact on the monetary state.
It is widely believed that insufficient funds for the arts influence the loss of creative endeavours. This is because the development of art requires adequate investment, as continuing creative activities requires a requisite amount of money; otherwise, it is impossible to continue the artistic tasks. For example, some cultural programmes, such as painting and drawing, demand a definite amount of money, which is provided by governments, because some pricy materials must be needed; therefore, if states do not provide this fund, individuals might suffer to carry out it. However, artistic endeavours play a vital role in developing individuals cognitive skills.
Moreover, this phenomenon would have a deleterious effect on financial advancement. The reason for this is that aesthetic products are more popular around the globe; hence, reducing the budget for appealing industries leads to lower income and profit from consumers because they might not provide enough imaginative materials due to insufficient funding. As a result, it would be a barrier to advancing the development of the economic climate for all nations. In contrast, governments are expected to invest more money in the education sector since it is the major realm globally.
In conclusion, despite the fact that governments need to allocate more money because education is the main sector of development, I strongly disagree because it causes the disappearance of imaginative advancement and has a negative impact on the financial system.