Some people think that the (government should provide (assistance) to (all kinds of artists) including painters, musicians, and poets. However, other people think that (this is a waste of money). Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Government funding artists have always given rise to arguments among its citizens. Saving musicians and poets will keep culture and values alive is one notion of belief among people. On the contrary, naysayers think that this results in an outpouring of the country's wealth since they stand on giving attention to shared difficulties rather than art. This essay will elucidate why the latter stands plausible by giving relevant examples. Artists are an integral part of society in light of the fact that they have the power to create visual experiences highlighting struggles that have been crippling society. Furthermore, they help to express this chaos to stabilize our environment. In addition to this, their work also acts as an intellectual stimulant by provoking thoughts and introspection. When tackling the plight of dying art they can collaborate with state agencies, to hold more shows and print enticing advertisements to attract more audience. The folk music national competition sponsored by the ministry in Nepal still carries the national record for the top number of viewers hence, this concert collected a huge amount of money, that led to the establishment of a music school in the valley for children. Even though it was a hit, there hasn’t been a substantial improvement in the number of enrolled students’ which questions whether it was needed to contribute such a big amount. However, a plethora of people argues that there are other societal worries needing pronounced attention than artists and their art. Poverty, lack of clean drinking water, female genocide, child marriage, illiteracy are more dreading concerns that threaten our existence. Ergo, the priority for the administration is to safeguard the lives of its citizens who also pay taxes. Hence this becomes the responsibility of the government for dispensing its wealth carefully. For instance, in Nepal where less than 50% of the population goes to school, it seems reasonable for the management to spend its money on overhauling the education framework. Therefore, it is wiser to use funding in areas where it is critical. As a consequence, the country had allocated 42% of its budget to education. Although a tiny distribution of wealth, after 7 years, the educated population rose from a mere 39% to 46%. This encouraging modification was attributed to appropriate accounting. In conclusion, general capital should emphasize the urgent needs of the public. Consequently, it is utilitarian to use it elsewhere to protect individuals from dire social conditions as mentioned above rather, spending on a luxury like art, which might not even give the anticipated fallouts. Therefore, I think that funds should be assigned primarily to manage serious problems of society first.