There is an ongoing debate about the role of government in supporting the artis sector. A group of individuals believe that creative artists should get financial support by the government. However, others argue that artists must rely on alternative sources of income. Therefore, ahead of my opinion both the views will be discussed further.
On the one hand, examining the former opinion, the primary argument the supporters would put forward is that government ought to provide financial support to innovative artists. One main idea is that artists cannot afford necessary tools. As a result, they cannot develop their talent. When artist practice something on a daily basis, he gradually improves his skills. For example, a musician who has a guitar can practise every day, which helps improve his talent over time. Therefore, financial assistance can play a crucial role in nurturing artistic development.
On the other hand, I still believe that artists must find alternative sources of finance by themselves. One major advantage of alternative funding is that artists can generate income independently by using their skills. As a result, this allows them not only to earn money but also practise regularly and gain popularity over time. Creating original work enables artist to distinguish themselves from others, which in turn increases their popularity. For instance, Michael Jakson created his own distinctive dance style, which later become extremely popular on the internet and further enhance his global reputation. Thus, artists should always use their imagination in order to distinguish themselves from others.
In conclusion, financial support from the government makes the artist’s fate easer, while I believe that creative artists should strive to achieve success through their talent and innovation.