It is considered by many that authorities should sponsor people of creative professions, whereas others claim that this is an irresponsible spending of taxpayers money.
On the one hand, supporting artistic creators, such as writers, musicians and artists is vital for the development of the society. The nation could not exist without a legacy and art is exactly that. Financial support from the administration is crucial for young people that are creating something new, not everyone can find sponsors and that can lead to the decline of cultural heritage and economical growth. For example main tourist attractions are located in the cities with a deep history of art and different cultural landmarks. Due to the development of young artists the economical situation in the city can be better, it can help small businesses to run and that is a great investment in the future.
On the other hand this could be spent somewhere else, where people need it more. There is always a necessity in improvement of the healthcare, education system, helping homeless people and those who are in need. The opponents believe that spending public money on art is not that important and artists should find sponsorships from a private companies. Also a valid point is that artists could receive more money that they can spend from non public sources, than the authorities. For example it could be easier to work on someone, when you don’t have a deadline and can do whatever you want and not what you need, so that could also improve quality of masterpieces.
In conclusion, while both sides present valid arguments, I believe that the government should back the artists. It will not only help the cultural growth, but will also improve the financial situation and the appearance of new artists with fresh ideas, that later can become a heritage of our generation