Claim Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed Reason It is inappropriate and perhaps even cruel to use public resources to fund the arts when people s basic needs are not b

The author contends that government should suspend art funding when citizens are hungry or unemployed as he or she finds it inappropriate or even cruel to fund arts when basic needs are not met. While it is true that reallocation of government funding should be considered in dire circumstances so as to prioritize the need of the citizens, it is also imperative to take into account the ramifications of complete diversion of government funding.

A government has some obligations towards its citizenry that it needs to fulfil using the limited resources. Meeting their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing or empowering them to meet the same through employment is one of its foremost responsibilities. The author is true in so far that when a majority of the people are not having their basic needs met, spending millions on museums, theatres, concert halls, etc. can never be justified. However, when funding for art projects is completely withheld, it would amount to the abdication of this very responsibility as one of the primary income arteries for the artists – who are also the citizens – would be cut-off.
Art projects and institutions provide livelihoods to a multitude. These institutions and projects survive mostly through earnings from sales and exhibitions, philanthropic donations, private investments and government funding. During economic recession, the ticket prices for art exhibition gets cheaper and crowds starts declining. Similarly, donors and investors are no more interested in luxury donations or investments. Therefore, the only constant and reliable financial resource for these institutions and the associated employment to survive is government funding. Complete suspension of art funding would render many of the related personnel unemployed thus further exacerbating the scenario.

A nation’s art and culture are the backbone of its tourism industry. A blockade in art funding would have catastrophic effect on tourism industry which provides bread and butter to a significant population. Moreover, art also plays a crucial role in intellectual and emotional well-being of the denizens. During unprecedented times, poems, satires, literature, etc. serves to boost the morale of the people and inspires them to tackle the crisis. Hence, when art will cease to flourish due to dearth of funds, it will negatively affect the already struggling masses. Finally, in making the proposal the author fails to consider a simple question: Will the complete suspension of art funding be enough to solve the crisis of starvation and unemployment? The reason for such crisis could be multi-dimensional needing different measures, and a bold simple, yet simple, step of fund reallocation may not suffice.

Any government channelizes its limited resources to meet different needs of the state from education to healthcare or from defence to employment based on the demand of the circumstances. During a war, defence budget becomes a priority, while during a pandemic health funding is maximized. Yet the government doesn’t completely suspend the funding of other areas. Same principle must be applied during high unemployment or poverty. While most resources must be used to increase employment and feed the starving populace, other areas including arts must not be completely deprived of their share of funding, however small enough to sustain them.

In conclusion, while optimization of government resources to meet the basic needs of the populace must be the priority during starvation and economic crisis, a complete suspension of funds for arts, or any other area for that matter might further worsen the situation. It will not only deprive many citizens from their livelihood but will also deny the nation and its people their rich cultural heritage that could have served to motivate them in tough times.