Should governments provide financial support to artists-for example, painters, sculptors, musicians, or filmmakers?

We've been discussing government budgets and the difficult decisions governments must make regarding the use of public funds. Some services are clearly essential and must be paid for by any government. But what about public funding of the arts? Do you believe that governments should provide financial support to artists-for example, painters, sculptors, musicians, or filmmakers? Why or why not?

I enjoy art as much as anyone does, but public funds come from taxes, and I don't think taxpayers' hard-earned money should be spent on impractical or inessential items and services. Artists should support themselves by selling their work to private individuals and companies. If they can't find enough buyers, then maybe they should change careers.

Personally, I think art actually is essential. Lots of public spaces in my hometown just wouldn't be the same without artwork. From statues in public parks to murals painted on the walls of government buildings, my hometown really benefits from funding the artists who created these works. The public spaces are simply more enjoyable for visitors because of the artwork.