Despite all of its benefits, the arts still receive some skepticism in the talk of philanthropy. Many critics oppose the idea of allocating resources to the arts as they consider it a non-essential element of society. In comparison to nonprofit organizations that directly support social justice or educational causes, the arts are simply not as significant. 

While philanthropy in other regions of society is undeniably important, it should not consequently have a negative impact on art philanthropy. As explained in this chapter, the arts provide an array of benefits in many major fields of a thriving nation ranging from cultural to educational benefits. The arts have always been a part of humanity and should stay this way. With the help of philanthropy, the arts can maintain its rightful, established place in society.

Recalling the idea from Dr. Burgess-Van Aken, now imagine a world without the arts. This would be an emotionless, dull environment to live in and would have a massive impact on our overall emotional well-being since we are so reliant on the ability to convey and express feelings. Taking away the arts would prove to be a dismal state of being. 

Not only would this negatively influence an emotional level, but this would also result in much financial backlash, as a large portion of Americans are employed in the arts industry. The graph below depicts the number of Americans who depend on the arts for their income.

As you can see, a large amount of Americans rely on the arts in order to make a living, so the removal of this field would cause much economic turmoil.

In our interview with Dr. Jean Burgess, she asks us to ponder a world completely void of arts would look like. The bleak picture of society that this creates is what motivates arts advocates to urge congress and philanthropists not to cut back fundings for the arts. 

Due to the benefits in improving overall quality of life, philanthropists should not turn a blind eye to the significance of arts and culture funding.