Imagine you are a person who never moved out of a place, and was delving into books all the time. You might know where was Da Vinci born, but you never knew how it felt looking at the Mona Lisa. You might know how the Sistine Chapel was made, but never knew how it smells from the inside and how amazing it feels to look at the ceiling. Art is something to be felt and not something to be read about. Art is still missing from many corners of the world and inaccessible to many. This essay provides an argumentative insight for the public funding of arts, wherein public, is initially defined as funding by a majority of people and then later as funding by the government.
Art provides us with a sense of something unexplainable, and artists make sure of that. Today, artists are infamously undervalued, they are not paid what their art is worth of. Public funding of art will ensure that there is no such thing as a ‘private collection’ of art, because a long-term investment is better than a one-time purchase. Public funding will also promote people to consider art as a possible source of investing as well. One might argue that this investment has no return, but ever considered why you buy a car? It is something you require to transport, similarly art is something that promotes you to think ‘outside the box.’ Perceive something beyond you see. Art opens our doors to a creative thinking process. Now, if you fund art, what do you reap out of it? You not only promote more art but also makes sure that some artist is not undervalued and not de-motivated about their work.
Government could be one of the most potential donor for art. The problem here is that governments fail to recognise the importance of inter-governmental treaties about art and how much beneficial it could be to promote art in a nation and fund artists as well. The public funding of art by governments would actually prove much more than just a boost to the economy. Today, why to people visit France, yes due to the Effeil Tower but majority due to the Louvre as well. The Vatican City, Spain, Italy and so many more countries as famously tourist-attractive because of the art they showcase and funding of arts and artists they do. Art is a better investment, because of the instant returns it gives us. Today, we look at Singapore giving Taylor Swift, $9 million for exclusivity in the South Asian Region, again music is art as well. This has already proved extremely beneficial for the country, by seeing more than a hundred thousand of people flying in the country, from all over the world. This could be refuted by the government by saying that, “We could invest more in defence, transport, and other sectors of the society.” But the governments are missing a point of actually understanding the huge market that art provides by actually allowing an instant boost in the economy and the number of tourists in the nation.
If the public, i.e., the government and the crowd at large, starts to fund arts and artists it will boost the economy of the country and will help unleash the creativity of an individual. Above, I have presented a proper stance the public funding of art, which could eventually end up in the utopian vision I have presented above.