The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

Why should art and history enthusiasts bear the expenditure of sustaining museums and art galleries 

• Public money is better used in alleviating social issues and addressing concerns of those who find it hard to survive 

• Visiting museums and art galleries is an elite fad and they can afford to pay for their pastimes 

Why should it not be their responsibility 

• Art and culture is a collective responsibility and not of a single group: these are the true face of the creative side and glorious past of a society.   

• Perpetuating the beliefs

• These places need regular maintenance and upgradation that can only be funded continuously by the state, and charging buffs will reduce their numbers and leave these places to deteriorate.   

• They are also paying taxes and they, like others, have a right to demand such leisure  facilities free of cost. 

The colossal investments by the British government for preserving and promoting museums and various forms of arts, has irked numerous critics who suggest that this expenditure should be the onus of the admirers of these venues. Nevertheless, this proposal can be challenged on various grounds. 

To start with, those who harbor this view, vehemently assert that it is worthless to squander invaluable public money on something that is followed by a very small proportion of the population. It would be more feasible for this section to pay for upkeep of such places, so that the money amassed from taxpayers can be used to alleviate  various social maladies like impoverishment, illiteracy and crime, to name a few. This would help render a great relief to those who lack access to even the basic amenities such as food, shelter and clothing. 

However, it will be quite inappropriate to yield to the whims of the detractors as venues that host disparate/diverse/different manifestations/forms of culture and traditions in the form of art and history, act as repositories of the knowledge and wisdom accumulated over the eons along with representing the creative side of the society. These places and forms also aid in perpetuating native customs and beliefs,and therefore, they happen to be a collective responsibility, rather than of those who are keen/avid followers of such endeavors. These people instead play a critical role of creating enlightenment around and persuading others to appreciate their past and also creativity.

 Overall, I consider this proposal to be ludicrous/ laughable/ absurd/ ridiculous and fail to subscribe to this in absolute terms. It is the history and arts that have assisted the society to evolve into what it is today. Thus, the state support for such undertakings should continue.