Where Arts Should Get Its Funding?
Few people would contest the value of arts in a civilized society. Great art enriches people's lives by providing pleasure, stimulation and an escape from the pressure of everyday life. However, it is also true that many of the arts, such as classical music, the ballet, and the visual arts have always attracted a minority audience. The question is whether the arts should be publicly funded, or whether it is the consumers who should pay.
It is my view that the government should subsidize the arts, for a number of reasons. First of all, without subsidies, many artists would undoubtedly be unable to survive financially. Government grants can enable them to work with artistic freedom, while if they worked independently or relied on private subsidies they might be subject to market pressures and the need to make a profit. Secondly, the arts contribute to a nation's cultural heritage and can create a sense of social identity. They can also play an important role in education, community regeneration and even crime prevention. However, the main argument for public funding of the arts is not social usefulness, but rather because they are important for their own sake.
Of course, there are those who argue that public money would be better spent on meeting the needs of the poorer members of society, rather than catering for the interests of an elite. However, I believe that a healthy society is one in which art and creativity are valued alongside these basic needs. Indeed, a civilized society ought to make the arts accessible to everyone, regardless of their background or income.
In conclusion, the arts should be funded across a broad range of activities, for example, by supporting community or school theatre projects, or bringling sculptures and art installations to public places.
