Some people think that the government is wasting money on the arts and that this money could be better spent elsewhere.
To what extent do you agree with this view?
Arts comprise of the forms of literature, theatre, museum and visual arts, which represent our cultural heritage. It is not uncommon to regard government's expenditure on arts is redundant in view of the urgent need of medical support, healthcare and infrastructure in society. Nonetheless, I strongly disagree with the provided statement and the government should allocate resources on the arts for its sustainable value.
First and foremost, arts are vitally functional with their motivation, aesthetic and relaxational value in today' stressful world. Notwithstanding the fact that investment and maintenance fess on museums and art galleries is immensely costly, entertainment is of utmost importance for maintaining human's standard of living. Specifically, it is undoubted that appreciating historic artifacts and sculptures for free, or enjoying a marvellous opera show can be uplifting after a week's hectic work. Consequently, the availability of art forms helps to upkeep work-life balance in a city.
Furthermore, employment opportunities are provided by arts industry. What individuals would like to see is a living place with ample choices of job. Had the government sponsored arts, more careers would be created. To exemplify, not only curators, performers and musicians, but also authors and artists are demanded to fill up the posts in countries such as Britain and France where the arts are highly supported by the states. Needless to say, cultural and creative art related careers necessarily boost the economy, in particular in developing countries demanding on the public purse.
Viewed as a whole, having been furnished with government's sponsorship on the arts, a city is able to sustain a positive development mentally and economically. Ultimately, it is beneficial to continue the existing mode of art funding.Please comment and estimate band score