States provide a considerable amount of assistance to artists, although some men and women believe that it causes an immense squander of public funds that could have been allocated to more beneficial areas. I would argue that authorities should carry on supporting artists because they are too weak at the beginning of their careers.
The primary reason why some believe artists should maintain their artistic works by using only their own resources is that art is unable to satisfy individuals when they have more urgent and fundamental needs. This is because people are not sufficiently impressed by any artifacts if they feel a lack of a public facility or infrastructure. Therefore, governments should prioritize more immediate public necessities before artists. For example, in Turkey, many people prefer to have a more developed public transportation network over one more exhibition.
On the other hand, others advocate the idea that artists should be subsidized by officials because they do not have enough economic power to perform their works in the first years of their occupation. In other words, art professionals cannot sell their products to art enthusiasts because their works are not well-known by people. As a result, they cannot earn enough money to do their profession, and ultimately lose their passion over time. For example, Salvador Dali had a modest scholarship when he was a poor university student, and then became one of the most successful painters in the world. I, therefore, believe that artists should be backed up by authorities.
In conclusion, although some believe that state resources should not be used to help artisans because art turns out a less important phenomenon when individuals have more crucial needs, I believe that financial aid is necessary for artists because they are in a highly critical period until prove their works’ quality to people.