Government enormous spending on art has been perceived by some proponents to be a waste of public fund that can be channelled to other things, such as the education sector or improving the quality of life of communal. However, I do feel it can be uneven, sometimes if they should focus fund on one sector to the detriment of others.
To start with, there are reasons why the state spends much of art. One such is the promotion of our cultural heritage. They believe that sponsoring artistic work will go a long way in saving our cultural values, not going to extinction and in today's world, people tend to care less about historical building and archaeological sculptures due to modernization. Hence, the only means preserving them is through government intervention. Additionally, spending on art also serves as a way in which the state generates revenue. In other words, spending money on The Museum or historical places can attract foreign national into the country and their activities can translate into more business opportunities to local people. As a result of this, it might, in turn, increase the country national income. The United Arab Emirates, for instance, the primary source of their revenue is from tourism has shown by research.
In spite of this, the government should be considerate of other sectors and should pay more attention to education and given the peoples' quality life. Research has shown that 50% of developing country populations don't have money to avail them to enjoy better education and eat essentially food requirement. It will be great value if people in power shift this available fund on a greater proportion of the community rather than focusing on Artworks.
In conclusion, I totally agree that there are clear benefits such as preserving cultural heritage, and a means of generating revenue. However, I believe that if the government should share the resources rationally by promoting citizen quality life will also go a long way.
Government
enormous spending on art has
been perceived
by
some
proponents to be a waste of public fund that can
be channelled
to other things, such as the education sector or improving the quality of life of communal.
However
, I do feel it can be uneven,
sometimes
if they should focus fund on one sector to the detriment of others.
To
start
with, there are reasons why the state spends much of art. One such is the promotion of our cultural heritage. They believe that sponsoring artistic work will go a long way in saving our cultural values, not going to extinction and in
today
's world,
people
tend to care less about historical building and archaeological sculptures due to modernization.
Hence
, the
only
means preserving them is through
government
intervention.
Additionally
, spending on art
also
serves as a way in which the state generates revenue.
In other words
, spending money on The Museum or historical places can attract foreign national into the country and their activities can translate into more business opportunities to local
people
.
As a result
of this, it might, in turn, increase the country national income. The United Arab Emirates,
for instance
, the primary source of their revenue is from tourism has shown by research.
In spite of
this, the
government
should be considerate of other sectors and should pay more attention to education and
given
the peoples' quality life. Research has shown that 50% of
developing country
populations don't have money to avail them to enjoy better education and eat
essentially
food requirement. It will be great value if
people
in power shift this available fund on a greater proportion of the community
rather
than focusing on Artworks.
In conclusion
, I
totally
agree
that there are
clear
benefits such as preserving cultural heritage, and a means of generating revenue.
However
, I believe that if the
government
should share the resources
rationally
by promoting citizen quality life will
also
go a long way.