Funding on art & culture: Yes or no? Discuss both views + give your opinion

Whether the government of a nation should be a patronage to cultural activities and preservation is a heated debate topic on a global scale. Both arguments provide valid points for their belief which will be discussed thoroughly in this essay.Cultural values serve as the backbone of a country. Without rich customs and delightful traditions, a nation loses its identity and homogeneity, afterwards, it will gradually convert into an unknown land with soulless inhabitants wandering around. Beside bringing in an in-negligible source of income, culture owns an irreplaceable place in people's mental welfare, therefore, the government's fund for cultural conservation should be viewed as necessary.Moving on to the opposite side's argument, financial aids for cultural diversity and preservation can be allocated to more urgent matters on hand, such as upgrading medical and training facilities. While education and healthcare directly affect on the future of a country as well as honorable moral values in a society, carnivals and conservation projects aim at celebrating and entertaining rather than tackling with fundamental needs. For instance. instead of funding a 3-day festival with flamboyant costumes and extra activities , the government should use that resource for hospital re-innovations, which will make a much more positive impact on citizens' quality of life.From my perspective, I believe in whatever context, things should strike a balance in order to create harmony. The same idea applies to the government's fundings on a variety of subjects, that no aspect of a society should be excluded, however, the financial support must be proportionate to the issue in consideration.As outlined above, funding cultural preservation, while started in good faith, can lead to other implications in the big picture. Hence, governments around the globe should take action for a both diverse and dynamic world in the long run.