In this 21st century, people are very much interested in enhancing skill and spending good time on different arts such as music, painting and being romantic with their partner with an old poem. While a group of supporter asking government to encourage special skilled person by providing them several benefits, another group is opposing the same thing and stating that it is worthless to spend money on it. This debate is a hot potato these days in the market.
If we look at one side, the crowd of people who are against in dividing financial substitute, they might be arguing that provided fund should be allocated to the top most necessary things to mankind such as medical, food, and water crises. In the developing and poor country people are facing issues such as water pollution, hunger, low medical facilities. To come up from this issue it requires more investment in these areas. For example, in India, at the rural area, people are still facing problem of clean water. The government should focus on basic things first and should increase necessary structure. For instance, water purification plant.
However, at the another side, the different arts such as painting helps people to enhance their creativity in their personal life. Making different arts and their role model popular, and providing them special benefits can increase interest in people’s life. For instance, in the United States of America, auction of painting happening frequently by government and the painting is getting sold in crores of dollars which can increase revenue of personal and government.
In conclusion, in my opinion, the debate of allocating budget by government for the artist could be beneficial to the society or not? The consideration should be made after looking on the priority of the particular country’s economy.
In this 21st century,
people
are
very
much interested in enhancing
skill
and spending
good
time on
different
arts such as music,
painting
and being romantic with their partner with an
old
poem. While a group of supporter asking
government
to encourage special skilled person by providing them several benefits, another group is opposing the same thing and stating that it is worthless to spend money on it. This debate is a hot potato these days in the market.
If we look at one side, the crowd of
people
who are against in dividing financial substitute, they might be arguing that provided fund should
be allocated
to the top most necessary things to mankind such as medical, food, and
water
crises. In the developing and poor country
people
are facing issues such as
water
pollution, hunger, low medical facilities. To
come
up from this issue it requires more investment in these areas.
For example
, in India, at the rural area,
people
are
still
facing problem of clean
water
. The
government
should focus on basic things
first
and should increase necessary structure.
For instance
,
water
purification plant.
However
, at the another side, the
different
arts such as
painting
helps
people
to enhance their creativity in their personal life. Making
different
arts and their role model popular, and providing them special benefits can increase interest in
people’s
life.
For instance
, in the United States of America, auction of
painting
happening
frequently
by
government
and the
painting
is getting sold in crores of dollars which can increase revenue of personal and
government
.
In conclusion
, in my opinion, the debate of allocating budget by
government
for the artist could be beneficial to the society or not? The consideration should
be made
after looking on the priority of the particular country’s economy.