Some modern artists receive huge sums of money for the things they create, while others struggle to survive. Governments should take steps to resolve this unfair situation. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

From the ancient times art considerably important. Having started with the time of the

first

people, Renaissance and Baroque until modern arts, people have been changing their preferences and tastes.

However

, now people have more and more interest in minimalist pieces of art, which exclude realism and have abstract meaning. Nowadays, some artists have pieces which costs a significant amount of money, whereas less popular artists have to survive and live from sale to sale.

Nevertheless

, most of the virtuosos believe that healthy competition left only talented artists.

To begin

with, government spendings on supporting artists is unnecessary, due to the fact that they already have enough problems to solve. Some other fields of living require additional spendings.

However

, they can support by making free exhibitions fro newbies, where they can make share their work.

Moreover

,

such

a show will be beneficial for the community, because local people can attend it

also

.

Secondly

, direct sponsoring will cause unfair competition. Based on some historical evidence, from the old times, many artists had to survive.

For instance

, Vincent Van Gogh, impressionist painter who did not receive recognition during his life and had to survive.

However

, now his works are in the Louvre and he is one of the most famous painters in the world. As Chinese folk wisdom says, if we remove all stones, only diamonds will remain. Which can be interpreted as if artists have competition, only talented will remain. To conclude, if some artists have to find the alternative way to earn a living, no one can alter that fact, because not too many things in life are fair.