There is a growing debate about whether countries should introduce funding policies for their creative talents namely visual and musical artists. Meanwhile, many people also question the economical aspect of its practice. While both views have valid points, I am convinced that the action is not necessary for the most part.
The primary reason is that when benefiting from the funds, artists can release some, if not saying most of, the financial burdens that they are supposed to carry, therefore have more time to spend on producing their crafts. The practice of this term when officially imposed is the encouragement for newcomers to set foot in the art field. As a result, the output improves on 2 fronts: its quality is elevated and its quantity is expanded. By investing in the arts, Ggovernment can receive certain benefits is in preserving cultural heritage and boosting their status on a global scale.
Also beneficial in terms of enriching national cultural values, attract tourism and raise public awareness in this area. Nurturing the art creators could probably lead to the success in engaging those influencers in propagandas and social campaigns, since their images speak volumes. A clear example of this can be seen is South Korea, where consistent government funding in creative industry has generated remarkable cultural and economic returns, such as K-pop (music), K-drama (movies) and K-wave (cultural export). All of these play a pivotal role in contributing to the ‘soft power’ of the authority. However, others contend that government should refrain from that approach, since there may be tendency in the reliance of artist on public funds. Furthermore, it significantly costs a fortune for no goods.
Public conflicts may arise as well from the fact that people have to indirectly pay for artworks, which are not always considered necessities. Another notable example of this is United Kingdom, which precedently provided huge amount of money on funding controversial crafts later claimed to be no use, in stead of spending it on healthcare and education. Thus, it becomes clear that governmental financial assistance for artists is of vital importance, only when accompanied with stringent and pragmatic sets of rules. In summary, I firmly believe that governments should provide funding for those who work in art industry, yet this support must be carefully regulated.