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.
People have different views about the funding
of creative artists. While some people disagree
with the idea of government support for artists, I
believe that money for art projects should come
from both governments and other sources.
Some art projects definitely require help from
the state. In the UK, there are many works of art in
public spaces, such as streets or squares in city
centres. In Liverpool, for example, there are
several new statues and sculptures in the docks area
of the city, which has been redeveloped
recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage
and history. They serve to educate people
about the city, and act as landmarks or talking points
for visitors and tourists. Governments and
local councils should pay creative artists to produce
this kind of art, because without their
funding our cities would be much less interesting and
attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the
arguments against government funding for art. The
main reason for this view is that governments have
more important concerns. For example, state
budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare,
infrastructure and security, among other
areas. These public services are vital for a country to
function properly, whereas the work of
creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury.
Another reason for this opinion is that artists do
a job like any other professional, and they should
therefore earn their own money by selling their
work.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists
should rely on alternative sources of financial
support, but in my opinion government help is
sometimes necessary.