It is true that governments should prioritize public service funding over subsidies for the arts, including music and painting. I completely agree with this statement, as public services often have more direct and measurable effects on societies than the arts, which should be funded by private companies.
First of all, public services are considered an essential need and welfare. Public services, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure, directly address fundamental needs and welfare. Adequate healthcare ensures a healthier population, education fosters a more informed and skilled workforce, and infrastructure supports economic activity and quality of life. Those examples are clear indicators of success on the ground, helping to soon improve the living standards of all individuals regardless of circumstances and income. On the contrary, although the arts have certain clear contributions to the national economy, their impacts are less important than the above impacts of public works due to their abstract and subjective features.
Second, private enterprises should be major investors in the arts sector to reduce pressure on the state budget. Specifically, governments mainly receive their budget from taxes, which come from the income of private corporations, individuals and the prices of both domestic and imported products. However, such huge amounts of money can be considered limited, only enough for competing priorities, including public facilities or the military. The majority of arts funding should therefore be the responsibility of private companies with a deep interest in the arts and the ability to be flexible and innovative in spending on advertising and artists such as composers. or singer.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the arts will receive less government funding than public services because of their less essential impact on society as a whole and their relevance to private companies in reducing government spending.