Some people think governments should give financial support to artists such as painters and musicians

Some people think governments should give financial support to artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about the support sources of creative artists. In my view, instead of alternative aids, I firmly agree with supporting them financially by their governments.

From the perspective of artists, with financial aid, they do not need to worry about their budgets too much so that they could focus on art creation much better. For artists, great art creation is their most significant pursuit and can not allow to be affected negatively. However, in real life, as working in the art field is not always money-making, which would effect their material and spiritual life, some awesome artists in poor have to give art up and go into other businesses, leading to a huge regret in their life. Even though they continue working on art, compared with government support, other funding resources tend to have more business purposes. For example, they may have to frequently join in the commercial activities to earn such money, which would disturb artistic creation.

On the level of the governments, creative artists are quite worthy to invest. Great artwork created by their artists might be one of their cultural identities of their countries and then enhance cultural confidence of their countries, such as Mona Lisa and the Gleaners. In this sense, the gifted artists who give up art creation because of poverty are the massive loss of their states and even the whole world. Therefore, it is necessary to support creative artists by states.

In short, government funding to artists should be encouraged, because it have positive effects on art creation and cultural identities of the countries.