These days, fewer and fewer musicians, painters and poets appear.Therefore, some opinions believe that the government should support artists financially. However, other critics think that money should be invested somewhere in lieu of artists.
To begin with, when people who are doing art shared financial aspects, they will be free to create without worrying about life expenses. These products will make a contribution to the tourism industry. Even it is considered “tourist attractions”, not only making areas more appealing and vibrant but also attracting more international holidaymakers. When the government sees the potential of the smokeless industry, the grants policy will be boosted to yield more state budget.
On the other hand, if we give numerous patronage to individuals with artist contributions, maybe we waste of money and lose hope. Some believes that the artists are talented enough, they can earn a living by performances and artworks without financial support. In fact, budgets need to be allocated for education, healthcare, infrastructures, etc… among other areas. Furthermore, if you were an artist, you might take the financial aids for granted. Money will be granted periodically regardless of art-related contributions. Consequently, this measure will be counter effective, the artists are a sense of dependency on amount of money.
To sum up, there is more drawback in whether backing artists about financial aspects. However, in my opinion the government should help them in need.