It is in my belief then that the artistic pursuit should be recognized as important. But if the government were to just shell out some funds for the arts that would reflect the majority of the people then this should be thought twice. The diversity in people would be reason enough for the government to rethink their position. This diversity would not help in pinpointing what the majority really wants.
Besides, it was said that the government funding could lead the arts to become passive (Radbourn). If people were to focus more on the majority then the artistic input would not be an artistic input at all but an input for the governments satisfaction. The government should fund the arts but they should not give out rigid demands that only the voice of the majority would be reflected. Funding the arts could have considerable outcomes.
Arts could affect the educational system since it would help learning become more interesting, it could also preserve the culture, it could have economic benefits (arts plus industry), and many more (Arts Funding). The rigid demand for the majority then could not help portray other ideas that may become essential and/or helpful in the near future. It would seem that funding the arts with such rigid demand for reflecting only the majority of the people would mean that the hidden motives are for the profit that the art would bring.
Most artists frown upon those who would use their creativity and label it art for the benefit of the fame and money that they will receive. In fact, it will only be an exhaustive task where its sincerity is highly questionable.
Arts Funding. 2002. August 22 2007.