The use of the government funding has been a prolonged discussion with contrasting viewpoints. Some argue that governmental funds should not be used for art and cultural activities while others believe that supporting art and culture is beneficial. This essay will discuss both views but agrees that financing art and culture is advantageous.
Some people consider it is unfair and unnecessary to sponsor art and cultural practices. They believe that while there are more burning social issues such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness etc. that require financial support, governmental budget should not be wasted for recreational purposes. However, art and cultural programs can bring about economic values by attracting local and international tourists, which, in truth, can be helpful in solving social problems. For example, the Carnival in Rio de Janeiro, an annual festival promoting Brazilian culture, injects billions of dollars into Brazil’s economy every year thanks to tourism.
On the other hand, there are people in favor of the government’s expenditure on art and culture due to the great benefits they bring. The first benefit is that art and cultural activities preserve a country’s unique culture. For instance, water puppet festivals in Vietnam have helped conserve the distinct Vietnamese arts since the 11th century. Moreover, art and cultural activities have proven advantages in contributing to the people’s overall well-being. Particularly, the Danish governmental spending on cultural activities is high. Accordingly, these activities, such as Skagen Winter Swimming festival and Roskilde festival – the largest music and culture festival in Denmark and in Northern Europe; are greatly promoted and become the key factor in making Denmark one of the top 3 happiest nations in the world.
In summary, although there are people opposed to government spending on art and culture programs, it is necessary for the authorities to continue funding them due to their undeniable benefits.