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 career, 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 occupation, no one knows who they are and they are therefore unable to sell any of their works and therefore need monetary support. For example, Damien Hirst was given a grant to attend Art College when he was a young man and without this he might have had to take a normal job. However, I believe that normal people do not benefit from works of art as much as they do from spending money on healthcare.
On the other hand, there are those that believe that governments squander thei money when they give it to artists. They think that there are so many other departments, such as education, infrastructure and health that need attention and are underfunded. For example, in every country in the world there are still incurable diseases, such as diabetes, and the whole country would benefit if there was more attention given to finding a cure. I believe health 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 might subsidise the production of masterpieces, a painting cannot help the sick and dying and it is therefore better if funding health is given priority.