The Government Should Subsidize the Arts

My opponent has made several very strong cases in his debate. Within his opening arguments there are three main points that can be derived: 1.) The Government should NOT subsidize art because people may not view/listen to it. 2.) The Government should NOT subsidize art because the money would be better spent elsewhere. 3.) The government should not subsidize art because people differ in opinion when it comes to “good” art. Firstly, I’d like that to state that his arguments are sound in reason, however, the fail to consider a few key facts that cause them to be somewhat incorrect. The main flaw is his argument is that he never specified that government should not subsidize specific works of art, or specific mediums of art. He labeled the argument as the Arts, which is far broader than he may realize. It is my contention that the government should subsidize the arts because of the following: 1.) the arts actively contribute to the economy. 2.) the arts actively contribute to society. 3.) the arts are undervalued by governments. Point 1: The Arts and the Economy The arts actively contribute to the economy by creating a plethora of jobs. Looking at two particular mediums of art (music and theatre) one can come to the conclusion that there are several positions used in order to produce a particular work. For music, the lyricist, musicians, technicians, and, to some extent, producers all gain something from creating art. Theatre is particularly relevant. Within a given show, there are at least 8 positions that need to be filled. This number is libel to change, depending on the size of the production. This relates back to the main argument because, with governmental subsidizing, it is likely that more theatre and music will be produced. Point 2: The Arts and Society It is wholly inaccurate for one to suggest that the arts do not actively contribute to society. Looking at evidence from the Greeks, Romans, Italians, and English, it is apparent that art was crucial in shaping each society for what they once were. In Ancient Greek society, Theatre was a crucial part of their existence. Offering plays to appease Dionysus, the Greeks valued theatre above most forms of expression. The Roman and Italians benefited from theatre because they utilized the idea of theatrical productions being used as messengers for political and societal agendas. The English utilized literature, theatre, and music in shaping how and what society was allowed to think. Even present day America is greatly influenced by the Arts. Film is a particular powerful medium, often changing society’s perception of a given issue. For example, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, a film from the 1960s starring Katheryn Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, greatly influenced people’s views on racial equality with its treatment of its subject matter. Point 3: The Arts are Undervalued Both points 1 and 2 directly correlate to this point in that because the arts are undervalued by the government, opportunities to influence the economy and society become less likely to occur because governments do not appreciate the arts. Budgets for art programs in high school and college are specifically low, despite the fact that artists contribute to society. This is where government subsidizing comes into play. It is my contention that, if governments were to subsidize the arts, it would only be to raise the declining quality of proper education and tutelage of and within the arts. In the next few round my opponent wishes to persuade you otherwise. However, looking at his points, there are a few issues that can be found. In relationship to point 1, I would like to address that the cinema, or the art of filmography, is enjoyed by millions upon millions of people daily. For instance, Jurassic World grossed over $650,000,000 at the domestic box offices. It has joined the ranks of many films to conquer such a feat. This debunks the idea that not all people enjoy art, because the majority of people do, even if they are unaware. Looking at point 2, it is my contention that the money would be well spent. Firstly, my two points from earlier provide a sufficient reason to consider allowing funding for the arts. However, if further proof is needed, one can simply consider the psychological and educational benefits that stem from artistic expression. Studies have shown that students exposed to the arts are often more proficient in reading, writing, and math. (1) Finally, looking at point 3, I’ll concede that people do differ in opinion of what is good art. However, once again I’d like to point out that my opponent did not specify whether or not the government should subsidize a specific work of art. He asked should governments subsidize THE ARTS. Since most people do consume art, I respond with an unequivocal YES. With these points laid out, I turn the debate over to my opponent. Sources: 1. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...