There are heated debates over the role governments’ help for artists like musicians, poets and painters. While some feel that the governments should not do the one, as it leads to financial loss, others, however including myself, believe that they have to provide the assistance.
Admittedly, supporters of the former view have some arguments to justify their position. One of these is that public money allocated to the arts a form of subsidy that does not generate substantial profits or economic growth. Unlike infrastructure and education investments, the arts often produce intangible benefit making it difficult to measure their financial impact. This inefficient allocation, in turn, may lead to inflationary pressures, as increased spending without proportional economic output reduces the value of money and increases prices, affecting the overall economy. Another reason, critics also claim, is that private investment should support artists better than using taxpayers money, as wealthy patrons and corporate sponsors are better positioned to fund the artists’ creative work and leaving the government to much needed sectors like healthcare or education. Redirecting public funds to essential services enhances social welfare and avoids financial strain on taxpayers.
I, however, take issue with the idea that the allocation of the public money to artistic creations is a way of wasting subsidies, and supporting artists vie the government funding boosts cultural growth and economic benefits. First and foremost, supporting artists preserves national heritage and promotes social cohesion, that will be a great way to show cultural and artistic achievements to attract tourism and to enhance a nation’s identity. In a country, as an example, the designs of monuments , created by talented artists, attract global visitors and boost local businesses. Investing in the arts creates tourism revenue, cultural pride, and job opportunities, contributing to long-term national economic stability. Aside from this, financial support nurtures untapped talent and creativity. Many gifted artists lack resources to pursue their careers without public support. Take a young musician as an example, who is given a government scholarship, can help them achieve international fame, benefiting both their career and national prestige. Supporting talent leads to cultural enrichment and innovation, enhancing a country’s global reputation and creative industries, which benefits the economy and society.
In conclusion, although some argue that investing money in art to give a hand to artists is a way of wasting funds, I support those who argue that allocation of subsidies for art aims to foster creativity and to preserve cultural heritage.