Some people believe that creative people working in art, such as painting and music, should be supported financially by the government of their country. But others think that people should find a financial support in other sources instead. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
How to allocate the limited government fund in the most effective way has always been a hotly debated topic across the world. More recently, discussions about whether the government should fund people working in art have again aroused much controversy.
Some people believe that government should take up the responsibility of funding people working in art for the benefits they bring. To start with, the development of cultural industry can generate abundant wealth which serves as a material foundation for the national development. It can be easily understood through the example of France where the fashion industry contributes profusely to its GDP. Moreover, it is a fact that the cultural benefit which artists bring to a nation is invisible. Since funding artists can propel the development of cultural industry, which is regarded as a soft power for a nation to fulfill a better role in the international affairs.
Nevertheless, other people maintain that funding the art industry can be wallet-draining for the government. Therefore, they believe it would be better for other institutions to take up this responsibility instead. They hold the view that funding the art can be a risky investment which can not yield quick returns and that government fund would be better used to solve some more urgent problems like education and healthcare.
From my perspective, I favor the view that government should fund people working in art since it is not just a form of funding but also a form of worthy investment. Unobvious as it may seem, this investment can yield excellent results for a nation both materially and culturally.