The government spends too much on visual and performing arts. There are more important thinngs. What are your views?

The ways of government finance distribution have always engendered many debates. While it is sometimes believed that state money should not be allocated to supporting culture and the art sphere, I personally agree with those who suppose that it is the government that has to be the main source of finance for this. In the following paragraphs, I will explore the rationale for both beliefs as well as proffer justification for my own viewpoint. Regarding those who hold that only interested individuals should be the sponsors, there are several reasons behind their viewpoint. Firstly, in case the government is the prior sponsor of art and performance, some other fields might experience a lack of financial support and, which can negatively affect the quality of people’s life in a country. For example, in Russia the social support sphere and health care are currently seen as underfinanced ones. Thus, elderly people's pensions and salaries of social workers remain the lowest amounts of money among all possible earnings, while in some Russian megapolices you can see regular art festivals and exhibitions, financially covered by the government. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that not only should the government support the cultural and entertaining events financially, but also provide money for scholarships for art and theater students, so the sphere could develop. One of the supportive claims is that such cultural events could bring an educational value and help to increase people’s interest in performing arts. At the same time, other social areas’ needs should not be ignored. In other words, it’s a matter of setting the correct priorities. To sum up, the optimum proportion of money spent on different fields including art and performance should probably be carefully established in countries according to its current economic situation, country development rates and a range of other factors.