SHOULD GOVERNMENTS GIVE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO ARTISTS?
Topic: Governments give a lot support to artists, even though some people think it is a waste of money that could have been used elsewhere. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Many financial aids to artists come from national budget. While many people think that this is an inefficient way to spend money, I believe that government sponsoring artists is beneficial to both artists in developing their talent and to the society as a whole in the long run.
On the one hand, it is thought that giving support to artist is a waste of national budget money because the country always has more urgent problems to deal with. For instance, in developing countries like Vietnam, there are a lot of poor people who do not have a livelihood and this problem increase the rate of crime. As a result, the limited the financial resources of the country should be spent on solving these issue rather than sponsoring artists. However, I disagree with this viewpoint because not allocating a portion of budget to support the development of art will result in loss of potential art talent and adversely affect the long-term development of the society.
On the other hand, advocates to government support to artists believe that this aid is necessary to help artists develop their talent. Without financial support from the government, many artists cannot afford the expense to study and to live on the low income at the beginning of their career. I agree with this viewpoint as the artists sponsored by government will give back to the society when they are mature. For instance, my brother was granted a scholarship to study art by the Singaporean government. Since graduation, he has been working as a designer for a Singaporean company that pays tax to Singaporean government.
In conclusion, although many people think that government spending on supporting artists is wasteful, I believe that this is necessary to nurture art talent that, once developed, will benefit the country as a whole.
