You think that's all that is required? Art classes in school? Exhibitions, and touring theater groups need money before they make money, and support for artists turns into economic benefit.
I went looking for the answers to my own question. An economic analysis of The Kansas Art Commission found that the art activities it was involved with annually produced $20 million worth of economic activity, which generated $2.1 million in local and state tax revenue.
When the state funding disappears, then any federal funds and local funds which were tied to the state funds disappear. That's an economic loss.
www.ipsr.ku.edu/resrep/pdf/m257a.pdf
My issue with the argument is this:
Cooking has economic spinoff benefits too, so why not fund restaurants?
Building toys benefits the economy too, as do cars, houses, etc. etc. etc. So, should the government now fund everything under the sky?
Yes, art brings economic gain just as professional chefs do. So just as we allow chefs to work in the private sector to benefit the economy, let's let artists do the same.
Concentrated arts funding is bound to benefit big urban centres the most, whereas arts funding for schools will benefit elementary and secondary students equally in towns large and small, while giving them the necessary skills to contribute to arts in society.
Are you saying that if the government cut all arts funding, that no one would pay to buy a book or a painting, or buy music CDs or see a theatrical play?
I love the CBC and it does a great job, but again, I don't see why we need government funding for it. If it's good enough for me to pay for it or put up with more commercials, I'd gladly do so. Again, provide media studies in school, and that's enough.