Final answer:
The question revolves around whether government should provide subsidies to the arts through the National Endowment for the Arts. Supporters argue that government funding preserves cultural heritage and education, especially during economic downturns. The arts play a critical role in cultural expression and learning, thus making government support an investment in society's cultural capital.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether art should be subsidized by the government through the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is a topic of significant discussion. Since its establishment in 1965, the NEA has played a crucial role in promoting excellence in the arts and supporting arts education. However, with limited funds, it cannot ensure the complete economic viability of artistic projects.
Arguments in favor of government subsidies for the arts often point to the cultural and educational benefits that the arts provide. For example, during the Depression, the WPA programs supported by Eleanor Roosevelt and others were instrumental in preserving a generation of artists and cultural workers. Without such support, it was feared that the free market would fail to sustain the arts during economic downturns, leading to a loss of cultural heritage and a void in artistic education for future generations.
Furthermore, arts have the power to inspire positive action and teach us about different cultures and ourselves. The arts communicate in ways that transcend language and can express complex emotions and ideas. They are considered essential for the continued evolution of culture and for personal expression. In this light, government support of the arts can be seen as an investment in the cultural capital and intellectual richness of society.