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.
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
.