Government spending on art
Some people think that government should support painters, poets, musicians, and other artists financially. Others argue that money should be spent on other, more important, issues. Do you agree or disagree?
Most people like paintings, music, poetry and other forms of art. However, a lot of people also think that governments have more urgent priorities such as housing, hospitals, defense, or water. In this essay, I will discuss whether art should be included in our national budget.
When drawing up its budget, a government has to make tough decisions. First of all, there are basic requirements such as shelter, health, and the protection of the country’s citizens. People need food, medical care, and education before they need music or statues. Secondly, governments tend to focus on short-term needs. They often fail to consider what future generations would need or like to see, and as a result, they minimize spending on museums, galleries or architecture. Another point is that individual politicians may not be very interested in art. They may prefer to spend money on things that will get them re-elected, such as roads or schools.
However, excluding art is a mistake. First, even in tough times, people need music, songs, color, dance, design and other forms of art. These allow people to express themselves and release social and political tension. Furthermore, to include beauty in the design of a building or even a city does not add much to the cost. For a slightly higher cost, even a hospital or a school can be beautiful. Additionally, painting, music, poetry or dance can actually serve a government by expressing a national identity or by attracting tourism.
In conclusion, we should always try to keep some beauty in our life, even if money is tight. If we close off all means of expression, we risk problems for ourselves and our societies.