There is no doubt that public services, which directly affect citizens’ quality of life, require substantial government funding. It is often argued that money spent on the arts is wasted and should instead be redirected to areas like health and education. While I accept that essential services deserve priority, I believe it would be a mistake to treat the arts as if they were a luxury that societies can do without.
What many people fail to recognise is that the arts and public services are not competing opposites, but complementary elements that together create a healthy society. In view of the fact that hospitals and schools rely on public trust and social cohesion, governments should invest in cultural activities which strengthen community identity and empathy. For instance, publicly funded museums and theatres often provide educational programmes that support what schools are doing in the classroom.
Admittedly, in countries where basic needs are not yet met, it seems reasonable to argue that every available resource ought to be directed towards health care, housing and infrastructure. Only when a minimum standard of living has been secured do citizens begin to value cultural experiences fully. However, even in poorer nations, community arts projects can be a relatively inexpensive way of giving people a voice who might otherwise feel excluded.
If governments were to abandon cultural funding entirely, cities would quickly become places in which people simply work and consume, rather than communities in which they share stories, values and traditions. No matter how efficient public services become, a society that neglects its cultural life will eventually feel fragmented and directionless. For these reasons, I am convinced that governments should prioritise health and education without neglecting the arts, which play an equally vital, if less visible, role in human wellbeing.