Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all kinds of artist including painters, musicians and poets. However, other people think that this is a waste of money discuss both views and give your opinion.
In this 21st century, people are very much interested in enhancing skill and spending good time on different arts such as music, painting and being romantic with their partner with an old poem. While a group of supporter asking government to encourage special skilled person by providing them several benefits, another group is opposing the same thing and stating that it is worthless to spend money on it. This debate is a hot potato these days in the market. If we look at one side, the crowd of people who are against in dividing financial substitute, they might be arguing that provided fund should be allocated to the top most necessary things to mankind such as medical, food, and water crises. In the developing and poor country people are facing issues such as water pollution, hunger, low medical facilities. To come up from this issue it requires more investment in these areas. For example, in India, at the rural area, people are still facing problem of clean water. The government should focus on basic things first and should increase necessary structure. For instance, water purification plant. However, at the another side, the different arts such as painting helps people to enhance their creativity in their personal life. Making different arts and their role model popular, and providing them special benefits can increase interest in people’s life. For instance, in the United States of America, auction of painting happening frequently by government and the painting is getting sold in crores of dollars which can increase revenue of personal and government. In conclusion, in my opinion, the debate of allocating budget by government for the artist could be beneficial to the society or not? The consideration should be made after looking on the priority of the particular country’s economy.