Max_02
Apr 10, 2020
Writing Feedback / Should tax payers fund artists? Discuss both of views and give your own opinion [3]
Some people think that governments should be give financial support to creative artists such as painter and musician. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
One of the problems of modern society is to provide financial assistance to artists in general, with conflicting views on how to tackle this tend. Some people consider one of the possible solution is to provide material aid from the state. While other think that artists should seek help from the private sector.
Advocates of this believe that government should ensure painters and musician because an artist can seem like a quality of life through his creation. For this reason, it is beneficial for the state to provide financial aid to the artist. Government has a wider range of opportunities because it has access to a large part of the state's resources. For instance, government could provide free-of-charge exhibition or concert spaces for local budding artists to showcase their talent for public views. In addition, the government can make good money if paintings or sculptures of artists enter the world market.
On the other hand, some people oppose the idea of government funding the artist's work, arguing that those resources could have been diverted away from improving public amenities like building roads. Thus, artists should seek multiple sources of funding such as through private companies, not-for-profit organizations or high net-worth individuals. For many years top brand companies have actively supported creative initiatives by artists. They sponsor exhibitions and performances, award prizes in the field of art, design and music. Private sector sponsorship can help ease pressure on government.
In conclusion, I think that the government should provide financial assistance to artists at the beginning of their careers because painters and musician are artists and not businessmen.
financial assistance to artists
Some people think that governments should be give financial support to creative artists such as painter and musician. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
One of the problems of modern society is to provide financial assistance to artists in general, with conflicting views on how to tackle this tend. Some people consider one of the possible solution is to provide material aid from the state. While other think that artists should seek help from the private sector.
Advocates of this believe that government should ensure painters and musician because an artist can seem like a quality of life through his creation. For this reason, it is beneficial for the state to provide financial aid to the artist. Government has a wider range of opportunities because it has access to a large part of the state's resources. For instance, government could provide free-of-charge exhibition or concert spaces for local budding artists to showcase their talent for public views. In addition, the government can make good money if paintings or sculptures of artists enter the world market.
On the other hand, some people oppose the idea of government funding the artist's work, arguing that those resources could have been diverted away from improving public amenities like building roads. Thus, artists should seek multiple sources of funding such as through private companies, not-for-profit organizations or high net-worth individuals. For many years top brand companies have actively supported creative initiatives by artists. They sponsor exhibitions and performances, award prizes in the field of art, design and music. Private sector sponsorship can help ease pressure on government.
In conclusion, I think that the government should provide financial assistance to artists at the beginning of their careers because painters and musician are artists and not businessmen.
