It has been argued by many that the government should not fund art as it is a sheer waste of resources as the money can be spent on the uplift of basic necessities of life, whereas others believe that spending on such activities is necessary to keep the values of a nation alive. In my opinion, I fully agree with the former belief that the humanity takes priority and the state should stop supporting fields like culture.
On the one hand, a huge amount is required for the uplift of cultural services and consumes a lot of the country's revenue. There is a strong vibe that this practice should be curbed and I also believe so. Firstly, the portion of the budget spent on the exhibitions can be used for the betterment of poor population. Secondly, the civic facilities can be improved if adequate amount is available to the rulers. Moreover, progress in the field of art has just an abstract value and don't generate any financial benefit, so it's better to invest in other sectors like the power generation, import and export, education and food supply. For instance, the same concept has been followed in true letter and spirit in many countries of the world like Thailand.
On the other hand, many intellectuals believe that the nations must keep their traditions alive by promoting their inherited values. Firstly, it will keep them connected to their past. Secondly, it will strengthen the bondage among the people. Furthermore, the uniqueness of the nation is being maintained by such activities. So, in order to maintain an integrity of a nation, it's thought that the economists must make plans for the upkeep of the folk activities. For example, the Turkish government is famous for its spending on traditional framework.
To conclude, I believe that in this era where poverty and other humanitarian crises are at their peak, it's obligatory for the lawmakers to give priority to such issues rather than spending on the music and fashion industry.
It has
been argued
by
many
that the
government
should not fund art as it is a sheer waste of resources as the money can
be spent
on the uplift of
basic necessities
of life, whereas others
believe
that spending on such activities is necessary to
keep
the values of a
nation
alive. In my opinion, I
fully
agree
with the former belief that the humanity takes priority and the state should
stop
supporting fields like culture.
On the one hand, a huge amount
is required
for the uplift of cultural services and consumes
a lot of
the country's revenue. There is a strong vibe that this practice should
be curbed
and I
also
believe
so
.
Firstly
, the portion of the budget spent on the exhibitions can be
used
for the betterment of poor population.
Secondly
, the civic facilities can be
improved
if adequate amount is available to the rulers.
Moreover
, progress in the field of art has
just
an abstract value and don't generate any financial benefit,
so
it's better to invest in
other
sectors like the power generation, import and export, education and food supply.
For instance
, the same concept has
been followed
in true letter and spirit in
many
countries of the world like Thailand.
On the
other
hand,
many
intellectuals
believe
that the
nations
must
keep
their traditions alive by promoting their inherited values.
Firstly
, it will
keep
them connected to their past.
Secondly
, it will strengthen the bondage among the
people
.
Furthermore
, the uniqueness of the
nation
is
being maintained
by such activities.
So
, in order to maintain an integrity of a
nation
, it's
thought
that the economists
must
make
plans for the upkeep of the folk activities.
For example
, the Turkish
government
is
famous
for its spending on traditional framework.
To conclude
, I
believe
that in this era where poverty and
other
humanitarian crises are at their peak, it's obligatory for the lawmakers to give priority to such issues
rather
than spending on the music and fashion industry.