Should we have government funding for the arts? Solomon writes a very long proverb and the gist of it is that there is a time and place for everything. I think this proverb applies for any government funded project. During the great depression there were many government funded projects put in place to get America on it's feet and I think at that time there was a public works project that included funding for the arts to adorn public buildings. At the time these programs were needed and though there is still some ghosts of these programs still lining the United States interior they were only in place for short periods of time and when they served their purpose it was done. If indeed their is another great decline in our economy then programs such as these will most likely be put in place again and along with them funding for the arts. Because with every economic downfall there almost always seems to be a great decline in the development of the arts. At the current time their are plenty of other things more important to deal with then making sure this nation keeps up with the arts. The government should not have a constant flow for funding the arts. Artist are egoistical and conceited enough as it is without the government's help. Besides if the government did take on that endeavor who would they fund? What kind of art is the type of art to fund? And what passes as art that it should be funded? In a way the government already is funding for the arts. They are giving me free money to go to school on and my degree is in the arts. And there are many other people that are going to school for art and on a grant as well. So, at least the government has given us funding enough that one day we can be wonderful broke artists. And at the present time that is all they need to do.