Some people think that the arts (such as painting and music) do not directly improve quality of people's life, so government should spend money on other areas. Do you agree or disagree?

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 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

Change the spelling

per cent

show examples

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.