Hopefully this works as an example x
There is no denying the fact that the government has to take care of several pressing issues such as poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. This is particularly true in the case of developing countries. However, this does not mean that the government should not spend money on arts.
Art represents a country and its heritage. Take, for instance, the case of India. The country is famous for its exquisitely sculpted monuments, temples and palaces. They were the handiwork of artists of the bygone era. Even today, the temples and monuments at Konark, Rajasthan and Madurai attract tens of thousands of local and international tourists. They showcase the rich cultural history of the country and elevate its status. If the kings of those times had not patronised art and artists we would not have these monuments to show off now. Not only the monuments but other forms of art like dance and music also need to be preserved for future generations. Otherwise, we will lose touch with our roots.
Government funding is crucial for the existence of arts. Art itself does not generate much revenue and hence artists, especially the lesser-known ones, have to struggle to make a living. This deters many of them from pursuing art as a profession. The only way to kindle their passion is to provide them financial assistance. By doing so, the government can not only protect its artists from starvation but also preserve his cultural legacy. Spending money on arts is also a way of generating money and creating employment. For example, if the government conducts art festivals and exhibitions, they will attract a lot of visitors and return the investment. Such events also provide employment to a number of people. Thus, it is evident that spending on arts is not a waste of resources.
To conclude, it is important for the government to invest in various social and economic welfare schemes. Likewise, it is equally important to invest in arts.
