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

There has been a controversy about whether

artists

should receive funding from the

government

to continue their work. I don't agree with

this

standpoint, and my reasons will be explained in the following paragraphs.

First

, we need to learn to take the consequence of the decision. It's expected that except for the top-notch

artists

, normal

artists

earn a quite low salary.

However

, there are still hundreds and thousands of men who set their dream job as an

artist

because it's their dream, even though their career prospects will be less rosy. Take art schools as an example. There are hundreds and thousands of Chinese students vie with one another to get a place at a top art college. At

this

point, we all know that it's arduous to earn money as an

artist

;

nevertheless

, students' dreams of becoming an

artist

have not been discouraged.

Therefore

, we have to be responsible for our own decisions, and the

government

shouldn't interfere.

Second

, the

government

's funding can be detrimental to

this

job. It's commonplace that there are always

people

who want to gain without doing any work.

Hence

, if the

government

decides to aid the

artists

across the country; it's bound to happen that countless

people

pretend to be

artists

and take the supply. As a consequence, the reputation of the

artist

is dampened;

people

start to think

artists

are just a group of lazy

people

who rely on the

government

's aid to survive.

On the other hand

, the

government

's funding is advantageous at some point. Take Van Gogh as an example. He is only famous after he died when he was alive no one cherished and loved his artworks. In

this

case, had he received some help from others, he could have made more contributions to our art world. In conclusion, I believe it's better not to aid the

artists

.