Significant expenditures are delegated by many governments into art, which in turn improves people’s quality of life. There are, however, opinions that more should be directed to other fields than art. I find that whether or not either views are correct is more varied.
Artistry is a fragile and simultaneously important aspect of any nation; an important front that should be rightfully protected. In that, governmental bodies are certainly justified in expending large sums on art. Furthermore, with the knowledge that the aforementioned investment does truly improve living qualities in their citizens, the expenses become even more important. At the basis of the argument for government spending towards art, it both protects and improves, and as such there is little reason to pull those fundings. A policy that does no harm, is what many are fighting for.
On the other side of the debate, it could be argued that the money allocated to the abstract and large field of arts could be pushed towards other points of interest. As recessions for countries and fluctuations in stock markets further weave their way into quotidian life, it has become all the more important for governments and their people to be prudent with their spendings. To illustrate, the Met Gala has recently been put under public scrutiny for lavish ticket prices in a housing crisis within the US. As government bodies that rule above and for the layman, it could be argued that art should not be so heavily invested as there is little merit to spending more to turn art into an increasingly out of reach subject for normal people, defeating the purpose of the investment in itself.
In my opinion, important fields within societies such as art should certainly receive fundings from the government, but these expenses should be created in mind of current social situations and should not take from other more vulnerable fields.