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 has always been an arguable issue. Many believe it is vital to save musicians and poets. But on the contrary, there are some who also think that this results in drainage of the wealth of the nation. There is no validatory argument to support the former view. This essay will elucidate why the latter stands plausible. Artists are an integral part of society. They have the power to create visual experiences highlighting issues like women violence, crimes and social injustice. Furthermore, they help to express this chaos to stabilise our society and culture. In addition to this, their work also acts as an intellectual stimulant by provoking thoughts and introspection among citizens. By holding more shows and enticing advertisements these art forms can be rejuvenated. Involving the public more and as well as funding can boost this process. The folk music national competition held this year in Nepal can be set as an example. On the contrary, many people argue that there are other societal problems that require pronounced attention than artists. Poverty, lack of clean drinking water, female genocide, child marriage are more serious issues that threaten our existence. Evidently, the priority is to safeguard lives. For a country like Nepal where less than 50% of the population is educated it seems reasonable for the government to spend its money on improving the education system framework. Therefore, it is wiser to use funding in areas where it is absolutely essential. In conclusion, national capital should be prioritized according to the needs of the people. Where art might be seen as a luxury in some countries, it might be sensible to use it elsewhere.