In modern society, creative aesthetics demonstrate and shape the diverse traditions between one culture and another. However, the creation of arts, including painting, theatre, and music, are all inescapable from financial requirements. Thus, regarding this topic, there are mainly two types of public opinions: the government should provide support to artists, and artists should seek support through other sources.
Maintaining the spirit of arts in a country is indeed part of the government’s business. The process of producing any sort of creation requires a vast amount of energy and time from artists. Although a masterpiece would profit an artist with a significant amount of money, the probability of it emerging depends not only on the skillfulness but also on the luck of an artist. As a result, the chances of the work becoming well-known are very low. Therefore, it is reasonable for the government to provide some extent of financial support to artists as an encouragement.
For the ones who hold a stand on the point that artists should not rely on government welfare but instead discover other solutions to improve the overall well-being of their living conditions, also presents a legitimate point. Governing a country involves not only the promotion of prospering arts and projects but a variety of other aspects that require money as well. As a result, the financial support that could land in the hands of artists is very limited, yet there is no reason to blame the government for this. This is when the ability for artists to find their own path to make money becomes meaningful.
As to my opinion, I think the optimization of both ideas would better resolve this dispute. The government should provide financial support, but artists shouldn’t rely on that. They could seek for part-time jobs and through the process of experiencing other fields, and potentially give them inspiration to create.