most artist and low salaries and should therefore receive funding from the government in order for them to continue with their work. To what extent do you agree.

Artists are the precious treasure of any culture, but, unluckily, most of them are supposed to live their lives hand to mouth. There has always been a concerned issue whether artists, especially low income, should be funded or not by state. Before jumping to the conclusion we should keenly unveil the whole concerns. A school of thoughts holds

this

Linking Words

notion that people related to art like, music, theatre or any other branch do not participate in the welfare of the society, so they do not deserve any protocol, in the form of authority funds.

Additionally

Linking Words

, they believe that art is not the necessity of any nation. Ministry should allocate its funding over most essential sectors like health, science and infrastructure. Unfortunately, I am unable to support their illogical approach. Undoubtedly, music or theatre does not participate in the development of science, hospitals and factories, rather they play their own part in the development of mental and emotional health.

Therefore

Linking Words

, if the government pays them some funding, it means the government supports its own masses indirectly through mental and emotional relaxation, which they achieve from art.

Secondly

Linking Words

, through funding, the state encourages artists.

Moreover

Linking Words

, they can be beneficial for state in many ways; they can gravitate tourists through their talent.

Additionally

Linking Words

, they can create numerous jobs for in

this

Linking Words

process.  To conclude the whole discussion, it is very easy for me to Suggest that,

although

Linking Words

, nobody is recommending law to fund artists on the risk of other important sectors like schools and hospitals, rather artists should not be ignored because they are the assets of any nation.