Thank you for every comment
Some people think that government should support creative artists such as painters and musicians financially. Others think that they have to get financial support from the other sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It goes without saying that the modern government plays significant role in supporting activities or organisations that are of great significance for society. So it is argued that creative artists have to be supported by authorities. However, there is an opposite idea saying that artists should find other sources to perform their work.
Some people believe that only government can effectively help artists. As evidence of this they point to cases in history when men of the art were not recognized by their contemporaries and could not finish their works or were less fruitful due to poverty. If government would assist artists financially such tragic situations will not have place in society.
On the other hand, it can be argued that artists have to get financial resources from other funds. As known, government lacks in efficient allocation of resources, so there can be problems with selection of artists and fair judgment of their created pieces. Another argument put forward is that the government should channel its limited budget into performing projects in more important spheres of society like healthcare and education. Establishing the government support may even worsen the quality of the art likewise the situation with the government social subsidies. Artists can just begin to make the pieces that are required by government commission to prolong financial support.
In conclusion, I am inclined to agree with the latter viewpoint. I feel that true talented artists are likely to find patronage from wealthy Maecenas and special funds or earn money just selling their works. There is a huge diversity of streams in modern art, so it is more than probable that the talented artist from one side and the person appreciating the art from other side will meet each other.
Some people think that government should support creative artists such as painters and musicians financially. Others think that they have to get financial support from the other sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It goes without saying that the modern government plays significant role in supporting activities or organisations that are of great significance for society. So it is argued that creative artists have to be supported by authorities. However, there is an opposite idea saying that artists should find other sources to perform their work.
Some people believe that only government can effectively help artists. As evidence of this they point to cases in history when men of the art were not recognized by their contemporaries and could not finish their works or were less fruitful due to poverty. If government would assist artists financially such tragic situations will not have place in society.
On the other hand, it can be argued that artists have to get financial resources from other funds. As known, government lacks in efficient allocation of resources, so there can be problems with selection of artists and fair judgment of their created pieces. Another argument put forward is that the government should channel its limited budget into performing projects in more important spheres of society like healthcare and education. Establishing the government support may even worsen the quality of the art likewise the situation with the government social subsidies. Artists can just begin to make the pieces that are required by government commission to prolong financial support.
In conclusion, I am inclined to agree with the latter viewpoint. I feel that true talented artists are likely to find patronage from wealthy Maecenas and special funds or earn money just selling their works. There is a huge diversity of streams in modern art, so it is more than probable that the talented artist from one side and the person appreciating the art from other side will meet each other.
