It is argued that authorities should fund creative artists. While some people disagree with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for art projects should come from both government and other sources.
Firstly, some art projects definitely require facilitation from the state. There are some artworks such as statues, pictures, and historic monuments have been downgraded a lot recently. For example, in London, there are several new statues and sculptures in the dock area of the city which has been redeveloped recently. That is to say, governments are concerned about this issue that represents the culture, heritage, and history of their nation. Additionally, art projects also bring commercial value by attracting tourists to the country. For instance, in recent years. K-pop music become popular around the world, magnetizing many people who are curious about their culture and want to experience it. As a result, the Korean authority recorded the number of tourists coming to this nation considerably increased. Thus, governments and local councils should pay creative artists to produce kind of art, because, without their funding, our cities would be less interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the debates against government funding for art. This is because authorities have more important concerns. It can be seen that state budgets need to be spent on health, education, society health, infrastructure, and so on. These public services are vital for a country to function properly, whereas the work of creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury and no longer necessary. Another reason for this opinion is that artists do a job like any other professional, and they should therefore earn their own money by selling their work as same as the salary others receive from their occupation.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on financial support, but in my viewpoint, government help is sometimes necessary.