Some people think that government should give financial support for creative artists such as musicians and painters. Others think that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
People have different views on whether it is wise decision to spend public money for art and artists. Some believe that government need to invest on art, while others think they have other priorities such as health, education and security. Although, there are good arguments in favor of both views I believe investment on art should be done by both public and private supports.
Art is as an important element of the culture. As one of the government's legacies is to promote cultural promotion and its value in society, investment on art and those who create it is an important pace taken for that society. Government can develop facilities for education and training of artists, provide facilities for their performance or exhibitions, or invest on projects for creation of artistic products. In each country there are artifacts that are well known as national symbol, such as Eiffel Tower in France or Statue of Liberty in United States. Without public funding, creating of these monuments was on doubt.
On the other side of the debate, there are those who believe government has other important issues such as health, education, or security. Investing money on cultural issues before advancing on those essential priorities is just wasting the materials. Moreover, they also argue that the art is considered as a profession and artists like others who have jobs should find their own client and sell their products to those who are interested.
Put in a nutshell, there are good reasons in both sides of spending public or private money on art and artists, but I believe in an average society art as cultural element need to be supported by both public and private sectors.
People have different views on whether it is wise decision to spend public money for art and artists. Some believe that government need to invest on art, while others think they have other priorities such as health, education and security. Although, there are good arguments in favor of both views I believe investment on art should be done by both public and private supports.
Art is as an important element of the culture. As one of the government's legacies is to promote cultural promotion and its value in society, investment on art and those who create it is an important pace taken for that society. Government can develop facilities for education and training of artists, provide facilities for their performance or exhibitions, or invest on projects for creation of artistic products. In each country there are artifacts that are well known as national symbol, such as Eiffel Tower in France or Statue of Liberty in United States. Without public funding, creating of these monuments was on doubt.
On the other side of the debate, there are those who believe government has other important issues such as health, education, or security. Investing money on cultural issues before advancing on those essential priorities is just wasting the materials. Moreover, they also argue that the art is considered as a profession and artists like others who have jobs should find their own client and sell their products to those who are interested.
Put in a nutshell, there are good reasons in both sides of spending public or private money on art and artists, but I believe in an average society art as cultural element need to be supported by both public and private sectors.
