Some people suggested that the artists should be fund by the governments, however, other argue that these money should be spent on other public services for instance, healthcare and education. There are pros and cons in both views. In my perspective I strongly believes that the money should be spent on other services.
To embark with the positive of supporting the artist, nowadays most citizens that have abilities in art are currently unemployed due to the economic crisis. Moreover, these people need help from the government in order to earn a living. On the other hand, if the government funded the artist to much the countries will have more debt because in order to help these people they needed to used the future money,for example, in Thailand the prime minister announces that the government would gives 10000 baht to every thai citizens that is over the age of 16, however, when he was in the position he could not do it because the countries have no money to loan the bank. Furthermore, the government have not gave all the money that they promise to give about 1,000,000,000 to BTS (sky train station).
The benefits of not supporting art is that, the government can use the residents tax more wisely than supporting the artist for example, health care services becasue nowadays the high class get to stayed in public hospitals while the middle and lower ones need to wait for their health services in government hospital.
In my perspective, I wholly disagree with the opinion that government should supported the artist because those people with think that they can used art as an excuses in order to get money.
To summarise, some people suggested that the countries money to be spent on art fund, whereas, some argues that they should supported other things for example health care. In my opinion, I disagree with the opinion that the artist should be helped by the govenment.