Some people think that government should give financial support to creative artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that artists should be helped by alternative sources such as people, NGOs and Universitirs. Discuss both view and give your own opinion.

Should authority financially help artists

such

as painters and musicians? The topic is often debated and there are two main factions. In these few paragraphs, I will try to introduce both arguments and explain why, in my opinion, it is not up to the government to finance their careers. Creative jobs don't offer a stable income and many small artists could struggle to earn enough to keep up with their needs

while

trying to launch their careers.

Therefore

, many people ask the State to do a small act of patronage of art in order to help

this

type of occupation.

According to

them, it is in the interest of the country to create the best possible context to help their job flourish.

However

, not everyone agrees with

this

vision.

In contrast

with the thesis in the previous paragraph, a part of the population states that the Government is not in charge of financial support to creative professions.

As a consequence

, from their point of view, it is the task of some NGOs or Universities to sustain their work. Mainly, because it could be a waste of funds that could be invested in more important projects and sectors

such

as healthcare or education. In conclusion, I would add that art is not an occupation. In my opinion, the support should come from fans and followers and not from some kind of organization.

Thus

, a painter should make money selling his masterpieces.

Similarly

, a musician should make his income selling his CDs. Despite, what I've just written, the Government should guarantee the minimum needed to survive to all citizens who are at risk and not only the artists.