Governments give a lot of support to artists, even though some people think it is a waste of money that could have been used elsewhere. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some would argue that it is correct for governments to finance artists, while others believe that

this

money should be used on other projects. While artists often need financial assistance at the start of their career, I believe that government spending on

health

should be prioritised. On the one hand, young painters and sculptors need grants and loans from the state because they are not established enough to support themselves.

That is

to say that at the beginning of their occupation, no one knows who they are and they are

therefore

unable to sell any of their works and

therefore

need monetary support.

For example

, Damien Hirst was given

a

Change the article

the

show examples

grant to attend Art College when he was a young man and without

this

Add a comma

,

show examples

he might have had to take a normal job.

However

, I believe that normal people do not benefit from works of art as much as they do from spending money on healthcare.

On the other hand

, there are those that believe that governments squander their money when they give it to artists. They think that there are so many other departments,

such

as education, infrastructure and

health

that need attention and are underfunded.

For example

, in every country in the world

Add a comma

,

show examples

there are still incurable diseases,

such

as diabetes, and the whole country would benefit if there was more attention given to finding a cure. I believe

health

is much more worthy of state spending because it saves lives, whereas art is quite useless in

this

regard. In conclusion,

although

helping those working in the arts might subsidise the production of masterpieces, a painting cannot help the sick and

dying

Change the verb form

die

show examples

and it is

therefore

better if funding

health

is given priority.