In developed nations, it seems rationale to point out that artists should receive governmental fundings to keep on making works of art due to their importance in enriching people's lives. A salient example of these countries would be the United States. Most cities in America are filled with murals and other kinds of artistic works, and a child who is walking along the streets in a city like New York can derive pleasure from watching these masterpieces as opposed to a town stripped of all wall arts. Likewise, by producing artistic works, whether it portrays or landscape paintings that can be hung on the walls of homes, artists can add to the aesthetic dimension of people's homes and contribute to a more relaxing atmosphere for individuals coming across them.
Nonetheless, in my view, artists and works made by them can only play a role in societies where pragmatic concerns have received enough attention. In the countries with economic hardships, ranging from many African nations to some middle eastern countries, most people live below the poverty line and are so engrossed in their daily lives to find ways to make ends meet. This means that art roughly means nothing to them but a prerogative of the wealthy. Not only this, but when government directs money towards art and artists, this will inevitably reduce the allocation of financial resources to other societal issues that deserve due attention, such as low-quality education, poor quality health services, and poorly developed infrastructure, which can adversely affect the quality of life.
In conclusion, it appears that artists should be supported financially by the state as their masterpieces can help people to have a more enjoyable life experience, but this should not be the case for artists living in countries grappling with financial issues.
In developed nations, it seems rationale to point out that
artists
should receive governmental
fundings
to
keep
on making works of
art
due to their importance in enriching
people
's
lives
. A salient example of these
countries
would be the United States. Most cities in America
are filled
with murals and other kinds of artistic works, and a child who is walking along the streets in a city like New York can derive pleasure from watching these masterpieces as opposed to a town stripped of all wall
arts
.
Likewise
, by producing artistic works, whether it portrays or landscape paintings that can
be hung
on the walls of homes,
artists
can
add
to the aesthetic dimension of
people
's homes and contribute to a more relaxing atmosphere for individuals coming across them.
Nonetheless, in my view,
artists
and works made by them can
only
play a role in societies where pragmatic concerns have received
enough
attention. In the
countries
with economic hardships, ranging from
many
African nations to
some
middle eastern
countries
, most
people
live
below the poverty line and are
so
engrossed in their daily
lives
to find ways to
make
ends
meet
. This means that
art
roughly means nothing to them
but
a prerogative of the wealthy. Not
only
this,
but
when
government
directs money towards
art
and
artists
, this will
inevitably
reduce
the allocation of financial resources to other societal issues that deserve due attention, such as low-quality education, poor quality health services, and
poorly
developed infrastructure, which can
adversely
affect the quality of life.
In conclusion
, it appears that
artists
should
be supported
financially
by the state as their masterpieces can
help
people
to have a more enjoyable life experience,
but
this should not be the case for
artists
living in
countries
grappling with financial issues.