There has been an on-going heated debate on whether government shouldsubsidy various forms of arts, such as music and painting. Some see thetaxpayers’ money spent on arts as a worthwhile investment to facilitate thehealthy development of arts, which is regarded as the scream of nationalculture. Reasonable may it sounds, it can be Idontknowlly misleading.
In fact, government and arts make nothing more than a noxious brew. It cannever be something of surprise after you have accepted the truth that thegovernment’s subsidy always carries with it a danger of government interferenceand distortion. That is to say, there exists a risk of the arts to be harnessedas a political tool. Subsidized art, which is concerned with reflecting thepolitical views of the government officials who fund it, will no longer be arevelation of social temper and the general state of mind of the majority.
Thus, it can be safe to conclude that the best government promotes a freesociety. Keeping the government out of the business of patronizing arts ensuresthat all parties-individuals are not forced to advance causes against theirbeliefs, while the artists are not compelled to conform to government standardsthat are prone to change with the wind of politics and popular thought.
What’s more, it may seem thoroughly ridiculous for the government to splasha large sum of money on the arts, which is nothing short of a luxury for most ofthe taxpayers, while apparently we have more pressing needs, such as health careand social secure.
In a nutshell, it will be a win-win policy to get the government out of theart business, with better art and more rational allocation of taxpayers’money。