Your Answer ▼
In recent years, there is a controversial issue regarding
government subsidies for artists. Some people are for them, others argue that
alternative ways are required to provide them with financial support. The essay
will discuss both opinions, and then I will give my own perspective.
Several people insist that companies and financial networks
among artists should give money to creative painters and musicians. To begin
with, corporations' financial aids would be beneficial for not only them but
also artists. For example, Lottle Company in South Korea has hold special
painting competition every year to provide outstanding painters with financial
aids. Utilizing their creativity, the corporation has made a number of unique
advertisements, and they were successful for the marketing, while painters
could make for a living. In contrast, some experts say that financial networks
among artists may be a great way to financially help each other, encouraging
them to be independent from the capital.
Despite these arguments, I strongly believe that
governments should play an important role in offering funding to creative
artists. Firstly, unlike other actors, the government can help artists who
cannot develope their talents enough to apply for other funding opportunities
mentioned above. Since artists should
spend a lot of time to improve their skills and abilities in general, only
governments which hold the public purpose and, at the same time, have a large
amount of budget can give financial subsidies to poor artists without any
condition. Secondly, it is a duty for the government to invest valuable
cultural assets. Thus, this actor should try to help potential artists that are
too creative to be admired and gain money from other sources in comtemporary
era. This is because their art works are expected to be priceless in the
future.
In conclusion, although both ideas are reasonable, I firmly
believe that governments have to put their efforts financially on valuable
musicians or painters rather than others. |