It is argued that artists should be supported by the government for their products, while others believe that spending money on that case is inconsequential. I agree with the latter view due to its high dependence and influence on the art market.
Admittedly, providing assistance for musicians and poets, especially those pursuing traditional art genres, is the way for them to preserve the cultural value of the country. Since the music market has innovated and created continuously with types of arts or music that are toward current trends, which make types of arts related to traditional become unpopular with young people. As a result, investing money in that sort of art can make it meaningful and always existing, although the art genres nowadays have changed. In addition, artists can bring long-term value for the government’s economy, as in this day and age, variety of art such as entertainment and film industry have a huge impact on economic. Such a way can bring benefits for not only artists but also the government.
However, there are some reasons why some people think that investing in art is waste money. The government might create the independence for artists. Supporting about finances can make the artists get used to it and have no motivation to improve and develop their products demand for the audience. As a result, such problems can be detrimental for not only the government economy but also artists’ creativity. Another primary reason for this problem is that the support of the government can transform the way the art market operates from the past to the present. Since art is also a part of the economy, its value should be determined by the recognition of the public; if that product have a high quality, it will generate income for that artist and make them addicted to the audience without the support from the government.
In conclusion, although having proof from the government can bring artists long-term benefits, the independence and talent of the artist should be more of a priority.