Your Answer ▼ Some people insist that as the quality of people's lives is not necessarily enhanced by the arts (such as music and painting), the government needs to find another area for investment. In my view, I firmly disagree because art has actually contributed to public society in various ways therefore mankind can enjoy an opulent lifestyle for during history. Another reason is that government funding for the preservation of the arts should be made available whether the arts advance human civilization or not because the arts themselves have significant worth as a cultural and social heritage.
First, mankind has been able to improve the quality of life for centuries thanks to the varied contributions that art has made to society. Nowadays, the arts play an important role as a community builder and prosperity generator for the public interest. To be specific, the arts create jobs and produce tax revenue. There can be seen in a lot of cities that a strong arts sector is an economic asset that stimulates business activity, attracts tourism, and expands a state’s workforce and tax base. For this reason, the arts have been shown to be a successful and sustainable strategy for revitalizing rural areas, cities, and populations struggling with poverty. In this regard, the government should provide financial support for the arts sector in terms of its significant social benefits. The creative industry in Arkansas, the United States, for example, employs nearly 27,000 individuals and generates USD 927 million in personal income for Arkansas citizens in 2016. Creative enterprises are the state’s third largest employer after transport and logistics and perishable and processed foods. In the state of North Carolina, the wages and income of workers employed by creative industries infused USD 3.9 billion into the state’s economy in 2016. And in Massachusetts state, the 17.6 percent yearly growth of the cultural sector contributed USD 4.23 billion to the state’s economy.
Secondly, whether the arts contribute to the development of human society or not, since the arts themselves have meaningful value as a cultural, and social legacy, government assistance should be provided financially for the preservation of the arts. Fundamentally/In fact, government aid does not necessarily target the improvement of well-being in human life. As some have insisted, it could be partially true that the arts may not help for shimmering the quality of human life. However, the government should preserve the arts sector in an effort for conserving its true value as a cultural and social legacy, not by its social functional/contributing values. In other words, the arts can secure culture and heritage, passing along a state’s unique character and traditions to future generations of citizens. As supporting this, nowadays, the arts and cultural areas have been shown the modern trend of including cultural heritage, cultural rights, cultural diversity, freedom of artistic expression, mobility of artists, and access to culture.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that government authorities should provide financial aid to the arts in the point that creative industries offer numerous benefits to national economies, and countries have an opportunity to both improve livability and boost national economies by investing in the arts and culture. Also, regardless of the capability for contributing to human society, the arts area has a unique value as a cultural and historical legacy in mankind, which is another reasonable basis for government assistance. |