Some people believe that government expenditure should be used to support creative artists like painter and musicians, while one part of society argues that that this is a type of waste of national budget. In my opinion, however, I do agree with both points of views.
One the one hand, the government’s provision of financial support to imaginative artists is an enhancing the cultural artistic value they bring to society. Also, art is an important part of culture that can creative profound spiritual and emotional experiences for the public. However, to innovate maintain these activities, artists need stable income resources. National authority can play a major rule in ensuring this issue and pave the way for pursuing better conditions to exploit their talent and creativity through the provision of financial support.
On the other hand, another view is that national funds should be use for others purposes than the art. I personally think that artists should seek financial resources from other sources such an sponsorship from businesses or charity funds. This can promote ability in developing entrepreneurial skills and financial opportunities from different sources, while helping to ensure their independence and creativity. Additionally, government budgets are often limited and need to prioritize for essential sectors like health care and education. If artists with difficult circumstances rely on other monetary aid it can be reduce the financial burden on their own nations. For instance, today there are many successful artists thriving without nation assistance, using social media and global platforms to reach potential investors even earn income themselves.
In conclusion, although the monetary aid from government to creative artists remain a controversial issue. Personally, I believe that it would be more beneficial for both governments artists themselves.