ANSWER
The question of whether art funding in the UK should be cut involves balancing practical and philosophical considerations:
-
Utilitarian Perspective: If cutting art funding leads to greater overall societal benefit (e.g., redirecting funds to healthcare or education), it might be justified. However, art contributes to well-being, cultural identity, and mental health, which are also valuable.
-
Intrinsic Value of Art: From a philosophical standpoint, art has intrinsic value—it enriches human experience, fosters creativity, and preserves culture. Cutting funding risks undermining these non-quantifiable benefits.
-
Economic Argument: The arts sector contributes to the economy through tourism, jobs, and innovation. Cutting funding could have broader economic repercussions.
-
Equity and Access: Public funding ensures art is accessible to all, not just the wealthy. Cutting it could deepen cultural inequality.
In conclusion, while cuts might seem practical in times of austerity, the philosophical and societal value of art suggests that such decisions should be made cautiously, considering both tangible and intangible impacts.