It is commonly thought that governmental funds should be directed to other spheres rather than the art field, as the latter does not ameliorate people’s welfare. In my opinion, I believe that benefits reaped from any kind of art exposures are indispensable both for society and artists, and therefore this domain is likely to be subsidized.
One key reason irrevocably tied to allocation of funds for arts is cultural legacy gained for the public. In other words, not only do people become well-rounded while attending art exhibitions and concerts, but they also preserve their cultural heritage for further generations in the long run. Were it not for funding art sphere, people may become indifferent to their culture, which may result in the loss of national inheritance. A prime example is Italy, where due to a regular fundraising the art sphere, Italian society becomes incomparable in preserving their masterpieces and raising culturally orientated generations.
Yet another reason to finance arts is a golden opportunity for artists to be motivated in creating masterpieces. As the more they are supported by local authorities, the higher is their urge to expand their artistic skills. In stark contrast, knowing that irrespective of their efforts, they still will not be appreciated by the government, young artists are likely to sacrifice their interests and find themselves in other occupations. For instance, having carried out a research scientists revealed that in Armenia the vast majority of Art Academy alumni change their professions after several years of self-employment, because of the lack of governmental support, which in turn causes the loss of new talents.
In conclusion, I am convinced that financing arts must be the top priority for the governmental budget, as it is part and parcel in generating caring society in terms of preserving arts and culture. Besides that, this will encourage artists to apply their abilities to the fullest, thus nurturing new talents.
It is
commonly
thought
that governmental funds should
be directed
to other spheres
rather
than the
art
field, as the latter does not ameliorate
people
’s welfare. In my opinion, I believe that benefits reaped from any kind of
art
exposures are indispensable both for society and
artists
, and
therefore
this domain is likely to
be subsidized
.
One key reason
irrevocably
tied to allocation of funds for
arts
is cultural legacy gained for the public.
In other words
, not
only
do
people
become well-rounded while attending
art
exhibitions and concerts,
but
they
also
preserve their cultural heritage for
further
generations in the long run. Were it not for funding
art
sphere,
people
may become indifferent to their culture, which may result in the loss of national inheritance. A prime example is Italy, where due to a regular fundraising the
art
sphere, Italian society becomes incomparable in preserving their masterpieces and raising
culturally
orientated generations.
Yet
another reason to finance
arts
is a golden opportunity for
artists
to
be motivated
in creating masterpieces. As the more they
are supported
by local authorities, the higher is their urge to expand their artistic
skills
. In stark contrast, knowing that irrespective of their efforts, they
still
will not
be appreciated
by the
government
, young
artists
are likely to sacrifice their interests and find themselves in other occupations.
For instance
, having carried out a research scientists revealed that in Armenia the vast majority of
Art
Academy alumni
change
their professions after several years of self-employment,
because
of the lack of governmental support, which in turn causes the loss of new talents.
In conclusion
, I
am convinced
that financing
arts
must
be the top priority for the governmental budget, as it is part and parcel in generating caring society in terms of preserving
arts
and culture.
Besides
that, this will encourage
artists
to apply their abilities to the fullest,
thus
nurturing new talents.