The government should lower the budget on the arts in order to allocate more money to education. To what extent do you agree?
Due to the limits of national budgets, many today are fiercely debating the proper level of funding for the arts and education. While some argue that the arts have important historic value, I side with those who recognize the societal value of education. On the one hand, many insist that the arts are an important reminder of national history. A good example of this would be the countless paintings of historic events and key figures that became prominent and fashionable during the Renaissance. These pictures now deepen not only our understanding of those events but also the psychology and values of the individuals producing and becoming patrons of art at that time. It is therefore likely that art made today will also give important clues to future generations as to the history and character of their ancestors. On the other hand, education is the key for the progress of a nation. This can be most clearly seen in developing countries. After World War II, for instance, South Korea’s economy was decimated and there were few pathways to a stable nation. The government invested massively in education and the result is some of the most important companies in the world were founded ranging from Samsung to LG to Hyundai. These companies contribute to the economy and have greatly raised the standard of living for all citizens. I believe efforts to fund education like the one detailed above have a clear and tangible impact. In conclusion, art is important for its value in terms of history but education is by far more important for its economic effects. Governments should strike some balance but prioritise education.