Nowadays, there is a discussion about whether the government ought to help financially national painters or not. After weighing up both sides of the view, I strongly concur that the authority should fund in local art.
Firstly, the art is a sufficient part of cultural history. Accordingly, if the government had funded country’s artists, there would have be numerous styles and famous painters by now. However, due to a plethora of worldwide issues, such as the world wars, these parts in culture seems not vital. Owing to these reasons, mostly every history of art is not intresting or lacking new information. It is greatly illustrated by students that have low grades in history, due to it’s boring or despondent topics. Which is definately is not beneficial for modern generation, to not have a curiosity about actions in the past and basic things about own country. Therefore, if local artists were supported, the national history would be vivid and elated for children.
Secondly, on account of fever numbers of artists, there is less rewards which have a positive impact on the country. Owing to the simple fact that every country is popular by it’s rewarded people. For instance, in everywhere students in school are studing famous people from the past in various catigories, such as music, literature, and painting. Consequently, pupils are learning about lands where they brought up. Accordingly, more and more adolescents might dream about move out to the foreign country or a continent. Which will be an upward trend for the national economy. Therefore, if the government fund in local artists, due to their popularity a greater amount of people will learn not only about them, but also about their homelands.
In conclusion, I suppose that supporting national painters by the authority has a positive influence on the country in various possibilities.