Some people think that governments should give financial support to creative artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
The following is my essay. Please kindly help me to correct it and give me some suggestions to improve
There are different views on whether governments should support the artists like painters and musicians financially. While some people think that creative artists should be able to be funded by alternative ways, I ague that a certain amount of funding from the governments is still needed.
One the one hand, some people believe that it is not the governments' responsibility to give the talented artists financial support. The main reason is that it usually takes time for the artists to publish a great work that could be enjoyed by a large group of people, and there are often no significant impact on the society even if a great deal of money are given to them. They suggest that the government budgets should be spent on other emergent areas such as healthcare, education and public facilities. Another reason could be that there is a market for the artworks and hence those creative workers on art could be funded. In fact, there are plenty of people who are willing to spend money on works of art and a piece of good painting would be sold at a price of millions of dollars.
On the other hand, it is argued that creative artists require government funding. It is true that many great artists lived in poverty in human history, as they were unable to earn enough money even if outstanding works were produced. An example for this would be Van Gogh, whose paintings are expensive nowadays, but he would never receive the money he deserved. Therefore, financial supports should be given by governments. In my view, in modern society, there are plenty of productive artists such as pop singers who are able to make profits through producing welcome works, but not every piece of artwork is commercial and the authors who contribute their meaningful works cannot always receive funding from nongovernment organizations. In this case, government are responsible to provide financial supports to them.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources, but in my opinion government helps should be given to those who work on arts that are less commercial.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
here, put your opinion and give some relevant sentences to support your opinion, so your opinion could be stronger
While some people think that creative artists should be able to be funded by alternative ways, I ague that a certain amount of funding from the governments is still needed.
you made a small mistake here, even it is small, it could be a big mistake if you do not pay more attention to them
One the one hand, some people believe that it is not the governments' responsibility to give the talented artists financial support. The main reason is that it usually takes time for the artists to publish a great work that could be enjoyed by a large group of people, andhowever, there are often no significant impacts on the society even if a great deal of money are given to them. They suggest that the government budgets should be spent on other emergent areas such as healthcare, education and public facilities. Another reason could be that there is a market for the artworks and hence those creative workers on art could be put into market funded . In fact, there are plenty of people who are willing to spend money on works of art and a piece of good painting would be sold at a price of millions of dollars.
Two points:
1 I have commented 'some people believe that ' becuase it require your own opinion.
2 you need enrich your sentence style except 'there be ...'
