Many argue whether people of creative professions should be financially supported by the government. While I believe, that artists may benefit from public funding, I also think that such support should be utterly selective.
On the one hand, I firmly believe that majority of artists have the same ability to compete on the market for high salaries as workers of other specialities, because the modern world offers uncountable number of opportunities for monetization of artistic skills. Therefore, public funding available for every artist can result in over-reliance among creative people and compromise other spheres as media and video production. Additionally, essential services as healthcare and education should prioritised over cultural financing, as tax payer expect reasonable use of their money.
On the other hand, government finding might be crucial in several particular cases, as preserving traditional types of arts and supporting socially valuable projects. Some artists may choose projects that bring hogher profit over these ideas that embody vital meanings and can actually enrich the culture and influence minds. For example, a Ukrainian painter every day drawing a portrait of the war victims undoubtedly makes an outstanding cultural contribution and support society. Furthermore, government should fund artists whose work has an vital impact in order to facilitate their financial stress and encourage diverse range of voices.
In conclusion, public funding is essential not only for enhancing cultural richness and international reputation but also for supporting socially valuable project and traditional art styles. However, public funding should be spent on essential needs of a population in the first place and only artist that can present artworks of an outstanding importance should be eligible for government support.