some people think that the government is wasting money on the art and that money could be better spent elsewhere. To what extent do you agree with this view?

There is currently a contentious argument over whether the government should invest in

art

development or spend it on other life spheres. I totally agree with the opinion that

art

should receive financial support from the government because it plays a crucial role in forming people's intelligence along with the fact that

such

work is a hard thing to do,

thus

, it should be well rewarded. The main reason I believe it is valid to provide financing to

art

workers is due to the fact that their pieces or the pieces of the great creators of the past they tend to save are able to develop a man's outlook.

This

can be explained by the fact that the more people are aware of

art

, the more they become familiar with the history of mankind. One good example to illustrate is that, as you examine the work of painters from the renaissance era, you can explore what was defining those particular centuries. Another reason I support

this

notion is that it is indeed a tough job to create or to be anyhow related to

art

. Creators usually spend many hours seeking inspiration, finding the best material that can be used for their performance. Needless to say, those materials are quite expensive and as the performer buys them, he or she won't be able to refund

this

money any soon.

This

is explained by the amount of time it needs to create an artwork.

For instance

, a nameless painter spends a few months writing a picture and he won't get paid, which means he won't be able to feed himself and his family. And if we are going to take into account his spendings on paints, we can come up with the conclusion that he might experience a tremendous financial need. To summarize, I completely agree that government should help the

art

industry because it might encourage the

art

workers to carry on and because their pieces have a positive impact on people's literacy.