Appreciate all tips.
190 "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate -- and, perhaps, even cruel -- when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
I propose that the investment on arts should be supported by governments, insofar as the basic needs for human survival are not threatened to be failingly supplied. By fulfilling the basic needs, human can physically well exist in the world; while by enjoying the benefit brought by art, they can live better.
Admittedly, when the society is disturbed with problems that need to be solved immediately, such as hungry, poverty and invasion by other countries, government should pay more attention to and essentially appropriate funds to help solve these problems. Consider those people having no house to live in and no food for the next meal, how can they be eager to appreciate a masterpiece of Beethoven? What they mainly care about is most likely the existence. After all, as being creatures, art is not the necessity to survival on the earth. Then consider this situation. During the 2nd world war, when the German military trampled on the Warsaw city and streets were teeming with the soldiers equipped with guns, how can the polish people forget their dangerous situation and have a cup of tea with reading a Shakespeare's novel. The existence is always the chief issue of all human beings, and it is the prerequisite of other elements of life.
We should realize that, however, some social problems such as hungry, poverty, unemployment that would always exist. That means, to postpone the art funds by government, if mechanically and rigidly conforming to the principle mentioned in the former paragraph, equals to postpone arts forever. I would be hard-pressed to point out even one society without be suppressed with these problems. Even in the United States, the most powerful country in the world, one can also notice the beggars on the streets and the often high unemployment rate. However, American government never cancels the investment for the art development as it serves for the well-being of human life. Art provides pleasure for the community, according the oldest definition of the function of art, thereby mollifying their feelings, changing their mental conditions to a better extent, which is valid to help them get rid of the bitter and painful. Symphony No. 5 composed by Beethoven, though being not able to prevail against hungry physically, bring hope and inspiring for people to overcome the difficulties through the strong impact it expressed. Romeo and Juliet written by Shakespeare, instead of affording people money, it conveys valuable attitudes towards love and life to readers, which is considered the mental treasures surmounting the material fortune to a large extent.
Besides all discussed before, it is very crucial to put forth ultimate value of art. Art, as everyone who had ever learned art for either a day or a couple of years knows, is not only a way to express the deeper emotion of artists, but also, and more importantly, lies in the depth and width it explores into the internal human nature. Having a quick view of the art history, a multitude of great works played key roles in revealing the human nature. The famous book, <Le Rouge et le Noir> (The Red and the Black) originated by Stendhal, well represented the exploration of complex human mind-affection, revenge, jealousness, and anxiousness--by Stendhal through his vivid description of the characters' love story.
In conclusion, to consider the great value of art, governments should never totally give up the efforts to support art at most events. Because art is not meals and medicines which can save our lives at the emergency, however, it can bring our souls ablution and inspire us fundamentally.
You don't really seem to provide very good reasons for why the government should fund the arts. After all, if art is really so inspirational and spiritually fulfilling, people will be willing to pay to support it without the need for government intervention. Also, you say that the government should fight poverty, but that it should also fund the arts because it will never succeed in eradicating poverty. But, if the government should fight poverty, and if this is a better goal than funding the arts, why should it not dedicate the money it uses to fund the arts to fighting poverty, even if the latter goal will always be a work in progress? You need to tighten your logic . . .
I notice that you work implicitly within Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which asserts that people will not care about higher-level concerns such as the arts if they are still struggling to survive. The problem is that theory is not quite accurate. While people on the brink of starvation or dehydration do not think of much else, homeless people do write poetry. The walls of former detention centers worldwide testify, by means of the drawings and poetry scratched on them, that people may need art even more when they are in desperate circumstances. So, that's another argument you might have used.
