Art is a part of history, culture and communication . Many people believe that governments should fund the preservation of historical art and give subsidies to modern artists. Others believe that national funds should be used for the benefit of all. What is your opinion?

Nobody cannot deny the fact that Art has been a crucial part of human activities. Some people believe that national funds need to be used for the sake of all rather than small proportion of people’s benefit whereas many people argue that the money should be invested in the effort to preserve historical art and help modern artists financially. My point of view about the issue is that it is worthwhile to spend national fund on the art facilities and modern artists.

First of all, the endeavor to protect our historical art is very important as well as meaningful because if we fail to preserve those historical art, we might lose valuable history related to those historical art. In addition to this, The history education will not be very effective without those historical art since most of students want a tangible evidence to support a historical fact that they learn from a class.

Sencondly, Art, especially many artists, keep inspiring many people who are working in different fields. More specifically. the main reason why many people want to visit an art center regularly is that they want to obtain a new idea from the art or the artists’ exotic perspective. Hence, I believe it is quite safe to say that the money invested in Art or modern artists is definately contributed to the public welfare from this point of view.

In conclusion, the national fund should be used for preserving historical art and helping modern artists because the money invested in art field is actually contributing to the benefit for all people with various forms. Therefore, incessant effort and attention is expected from the public to help modern artists and continue to preserve our historical art.