Argumentative Essay: Should The Government Fund The Arts?

Many people believe that state funding should only go to sciences. This belief is often portrayed as practical, rather than moral, but the debate is more complex than that. Those who argue that the Arts shouldn't be funded say that while science is "useful" or "has real world benefits", the Arts are purely additional and serve no purpose therefor they shouldn't be funded by central government. There are three key points that refute this argument. The first is that if Arts funding was withdrawn then the Arts would not disappear but would only be available to the middle and upper classes, Arts funding allows less well off people to get past a barrier to social mobility. The second is that Arts is actually useful, the Arts improve key skills that …show more content…
Theoretical physics has no economic value in itself, and many would say that projects costing billions are a waste of Government money. But the key thing is that, like the urge to know more about our universe, the Arts are what make us human. Storytelling, and the study of ourselves is what makes the Arts. They produce enjoyment and inspiration for so many people. To cut spending on the Arts as part of the drive for austerity economics is cutting the humanity out of humans. The economy is society. Politicians who use the language of the economy being a separate thing from people dehumanise us all because without the Arts people are not people. The Arts should be funded, not because they are useful, but because they are worthwhile in isolation. Focusing on "Graduate Attributes" and jobs and skills makes the Arts into something that it is not. The argument that the Arts must be economically useful hurts the Arts, focusing on the wrong priorities rather than just purely learning more about our world and society. Cutting funding would only increase the mission creep of making the Arts into purely business oriented discipline, which would damage it just as much as the loss of