A school of thought suggests that since a majority of artists do not have high earnings, governments should allocate resources to them to sustain their work. I completely disagree with this viewpoint, as there are more concerning issues that require government attention, and subsidizing only artists would be unfair to individuals who work in other professions.
Firstly, government resources could be better spent on more important problems in society rather than on artists. Although the arts provide cultural and creative values, they do not directly affect the livelihood of a populace. Meanwhile, many countries nowadays are struggling with famines, water shortages and high unemployment rates. These issues are more pressing, and governments should prioritize allocating their resources to resolving them.
Secondly, there are many professions that do not pay high salaries, hence it would be unfair to give special treatments to artists. Some of these professions are arguably more beneficial to society than artists, such as teachers or social workers. Therefore, if governments fund artists just because they have low income, inequality would be created among occupations. For instance, a garbage man, in my view, should receive government funding before artists, because he provides an impactful service that greatly benefits people’s lives.
In conclusion, while it is true that low salaries pose significant challenges to artists who are dedicated to their craft, I oppose the idea that resources from governments should be directed toward them. Instead, governments should focus on resolving the issues that greatly affect people’s lives, and avoid funding artists over other professions to ensure equality and equity for all individuals.