Some people think that governments should give financial support to creative artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources.

There is mixed opinion when it comes to deciding about sources of

income

for creative artists.

This

essay will narrate both the aspects Artists can focus on their one

art

development, if money part of survival is taken care by the government of the country in which artists are living.

Initially

, artists are in the struggling situation because to generate

art

they must concentrate on their job of performing

art

, which might not generate

income

. In

such

situation if the authorities of nations take the responsibility of

art

producers.

For example

,

initially

the painters do not find buyers for their paintings,

also

there is cost involved in procuring the material to generate

art

, if

this

is taken care by the government, they can focus on awesome creativity, if it gets materialized it will be a life changing opportunity for artists.

However

, there are negativities exist,

such

as what if artists are not able to generate

income

,

then

government’s investment will not be useful, and it will be wastage. There are private bodies

such

as non-government organizations (NGOs), who can take responsibility of taking care of artists for the delayed gratification purpose.

Initially

as artists are not famous and with almost zero

income

,

such

NGOs can get artists at very low rates, but as progress is made by artists, soon NGOs will able to generate

income

through the artists.

On the contrary

,

such

private bodies should not put pressure on artists to monetize the

art

.

Otherwise

artists can not focus on

art

development. To sum up, both the views are genuine, government should financially support the artists so that their

art

should not get nullified because of money for living.

Also

, private organizations and artists can have mutual benefits.