The subject of whether governments should subsidise the arts at the expense of services like education, healthcare and public transport is controversial. Some say they should and some say they should not, and both groups have valid arguments.
Those who oppose the subsidising of the arts in favour of essential services focus on the key word, ‘essential’. Healthcare saves lives, education teaches us important skills which we will need throughout our lives and public transport helps us get around while reducing our reliance on cars, thus helping the environment. In my country, the government is often criticised for not putting enough money into these essential services. For example, our national health system is stretched to its limit. There are not enough doctors, other healthcare workers are underpaid and the hospitals themselves are under-equipped. Surely, people argue, saving a human life is more important than paying an opera company to do a world tour.
Those who support subsidising the arts also have a compelling argument. Our film-making industry, our theatres, our museums and galleries and so on are part of what we are, they are part of our culture and our heritage. Furthermore, they help to bring in money. People will pay to go into an art gallery or see a show, that money provides employment, and the employees then pay tax which goes back into the economy and ultimately makes its way into the healthcare or education system. This circle helps to keep the country running.
Speaking personally, I probably agree more with the first group than the second. After all, when I am ill, I do not go to an art gallery for a bit of culture. I head to my doctor and hope she can make me well. On the other hand, I hate to think how empty my life would be without art and culture. In conclusion, I believe that these should be subsidised, but perhaps the money could come from another source, such as a national lottery.