Whether the government should spend money on art or in improving health and education has become a controversial issue. While some people argue that funding to art is essential for every nation, others believe that budget is better to be assigned to improving health and education. This essay will discuss Although art and history represent the culture of countries, why investment in health and education is superior.
On the one hand, proponents of this idea that the government should devote a large amount of money for art always have their reasons. They believe that art is a part of the culture and heritage of people which inherited from their ancestors and should be appreciated. Indeed, they often refer to the Renaissance and the influence of the art on emerge of the revolution. For these reasons, some claim that devoting budget on art sector is essential.
On the contrary, many think that healthcare and education facilities have priority rather than art. They contend it is justified according to Maslow's hierarchy of need, the fundamental needs of anyone are including health, food, clothes, etc. Furthermore, someone who is not well-educated will not be able to understand artworks which can indicate that importance of two essential factors on human life. For instance, if a person has only a few dollars while is hungry or ill will not purchase artwork or will not go to a museum. Hence, people who advocate the theory that investment in health and education is superior rather than art have rational reasons for their claims.
Prioritization has a significant role in the dedication of the budget in every government. This essay discussed why art is a significant heritage of every nation as should be allocated budget on it but why the basic needs include health and education should be a priority over art. After looking at both side of this argument, it is felt that if every country can provide the fundamental necessities of people, they should be spent money on other sections such as art and history.