Some would argue that it is correct for governments to finance artists, while others believe that this money should be used on other projects. While artists often need financial assistance at the start of their careers, I believe that government spending on health should be prioritised.
On the one hand, young painters and sculptors need grants and loans from the state because they are not established enough to support themselves. That is to say that at the beginning of their careers, no one knows who they are, and they are, therefore, unable to sell any of their works and need monetary support. For example, the famous British artist Damien Hirst was given a grant to attend art college when he was a young man, and without this, he might have had to do another job at the same time as his art. However, I believe that ordinary people do not benefit from works of art as much as they do from money being spent on healthcare.
On the other hand, there are those that believe that governments squander their money when they give it to artists, and this money should instead be used to improve the health service. Public healthcare in this country is chronically underfunded, and this has led to a situation in which many people cannot receive the treatment they need when they need it. For example, waiting times for operations for severe diseases such as cancer and diabetes have gone up in recent years, with many people reporting waits of up to six months for vital treatment. I believe healthcare is much more worthy of state spending because it saves lives, whereas art is quite useless in this regard.
In conclusion, although helping those working in the arts is important for young artists who are yet to become established, a painting cannot help the sick and dying, and it is, therefore, better if funding health is given priority.