There is an ongoing debate regarding funding of public art, with some individuals asserting that the government should finance it, whereas others suggest it needs to be funded from other sources. Although a country’s budget can be spent on more important current needs, I firmly believe that authorities should be the main financial supporters of public art as it plays a vital role in protecting national heritage.
On the one hand, money from taxpayers can be directed to more urgent issues rather than to art galleries or museums. Budgets are usually limited, and therefore the government should prioritize essential services such as healthcare and education. For instance, famous museums are often funded by private organisations, allowing authorities to focus on other needs. Hence, art is not always a necessity and can be supported by private means.
On the other hand, public art is crucial in maintaining national identity and heritage. Most of the exhibits are illustrations of our culture and history, which play a significant role in today’s society. For instance, the National Museum of Kazakhstan proudly demonstrates works of well-known XX century kazakh artists, popularizing and introducing art of that period to the public. If such exhibitions are no longer supported by authorities, traditional and historical art forms are in risk of being forgotten.
To conclude, even though public art is not a priority for government in comparison to other issues, it is important to protect national heritage by contributing money to art.