Some people think that governments should give financial support to creative artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Sample 1:

People have different views about the government funding of creative artists. While some people disagree with the idea of government sponsorship for artists, I believe that money for art projects should come from both governments and other sources.

Some art projects definitely require help from the state. In the UK, there are many works of art in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres. In Liverpool, for example, there are several new statues and sculptures in the docks area of the city, which has been redeveloped recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage and history. They serve to educate people about the city, and act as landmarks or talking points for visitors and tourists. Governments and local councils should pay creative artists to produce this kind of art, because without their offering financial assistance, our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.

On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government spending for art. The main reason for this view is that more important problems are now at the top of the government’s agenda. For example, state budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and security, among other areas. These public services are vital for a country to function properly, whereas the work of creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury. Another reason for this opinion is that artists do a job like any other professional, and they should therefore earn their own money by selling their work.

In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.

Sample 2:

Although Proficient creators like musicians and painters are the assets of our society, whether they should be given sufficient fiscal support by their own authorities has triggered spirited debates. Some assert that government is obliged to generate money for their skillfulness, whereas others contend that alternative ways are to be taken into account. In my perspective, the latter should be considered highly, for they provide clear-cut advantages.

The idea is that government must lend a helping hand to its artists does have a handful benefits. One reason why people propose this is that artists could easily collect reasonable income to bring forth remarkable creations. The perceived general idea is that this readily available fund would encourage the talents to bring out the best in them, which, in turn, enhances remarkable achievements not only to the artists but also to the government. Nevertheless, it is highly likely that, if they get necessary resources as easily as ABC, they would develop laziness and this drawback retard the overall cultural promotion and improvement of their nation.

However, the counter arguments of supporting talents financially seem more likely to be effective rationally than the former. This is partly because people who work hard to earn money for their creative works will definitely value their job and thereby, they strive tirelessly to achieve their dreams. They will, for example, estimate the needed costs and use them adequately. It is also relevant that artists can make further alterations in their creations as they are not bound by any rules and regulations, and they can clearly do whatever they want for better accomplishments. Moreover, each and every authority is mandated to consider other big issues, which is chiefly important to protect its public.

To put it in a nutshell, while getting promoted economically by the government is supportive, I believe, other options such as private funds are to be chosen, in addition to the government budget, it would be argued, could be allocated for other necessary purposes.

Sample 3:

It is unquestionable that one very complex issue in today's world is the funding support to creative artists. While there is a controversy that should be supported and funded by the government. I do believe that there is also a case for saying that they should be funded by alternative sources.

It is fairly easy to understand the reason why government support is vital to artists and their projects. Perhaps by considering that proportion of artists are living in poverty. In fact, only a few artists, who have achieved success in their fields, are able to support themselves, whereas others are still struggling for life and some of them even living below the poverty line. Likewise, the construction of a non-profitable art gallery, which helps the public to develop a sense of art, requires vast sums of money. Therefore, without financial funding by government, our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.

However, we can fairly understand that artists should put no emphasis on the state to fund their work. While most musicians and the majority of painters make a living by performing or selling their artistic creations to fans or collectors. Besides, as to painters or musicians, they can expect to gain their income as tutors giving individuals lessons. In short, these artists are capable of gaining financial support in a number of ways.

In conclusion, I believe that there are good reasons why artists should not only rely on the government for supporting them, but alternative sources of financial support should be suggested.

Sample 4:

More and more artists are naturally born since the dawn of time. As a result, it has been the subject of discussion on whether the state or a non-government institution should support them financially. These points of view will be discussed in this order.

It is believed by some that the country's administration should finance the creative artists. For instance, under President Ferdinand E. Marcos regime, all of our skillfully created arts by the Filipino artists were provided by all the helps they needed. Like Fernando Amorsolo, one of the most famous painters in the Philippines was funded by the late President Marcos and even his first exhibition held in the National Museum of the country. Thus, he was known by visitors who came and saw his creations internationally, and this led him to exhibit his paintings in different countries. He made our country known around the world and he is indeed a Filipino pride.

On the other hand, many argue that NGOs (Non-government Organisations) should be the one financing them. An idea that may support this is that the government has a lot of funding already and they cannot afford to finance these creators of arts, so it is better to ask for a help to a private institution. For example, the Pro-mil Milk Company has funded the concert of Sarah Geronimo in Araneta Coliseum. She is the most popular singer in the Philippines because she sings magnificently and can touch our deepest emotions. In fact, this private company can make a lot of profit in her concert.

In conclusion, for reasons related to the Philippine pride and private institution making of profit when financing arts creators is supported and refuted by many. However, after analysing these two points of view, it is clear that the Philippine government should finance them. Thus, the argument that the state should financially support creative artists can be supported and expected to be realised.

Sample 5:

A group of people believe that governments should provide subsidies for unpopular or amateur artists, while other people think that artistic people should be subsidised from another resource. The following essay will discuss both opinions, but in my personal opinion, I believe that governments should fund them before they are sponsored by alternative sources.

Several people believe that creative artists such as street painters and musicians should not be subsidised by the governments. They think that art activities are not the basic need of human beings, and governments should focus on more important matters. For example, rather than spending some budget for these street artists, the fund could be allocated for improving the public education sectors, public transportations or public facilities. They think that creative artist should seek sponsorship from private institutions or private companies.

For several reasons, some people believe that creative artists should be funded by governments. Firstly, many amateur painters have painted some of the public areas, and they have changed the look and the atmosphere of these places from a negative aura into a positive one. Secondly, some talented artists have made artistic sculptures and placed them in public areas such as in the parks, and they have made the parks become more beautiful and attractive. Thirdly, many amateur musicians who are performing in public areas, such as in subways or in bus terminals have entertained the public with their music. Therefore, it is undeniable that the existence of these artists brings benefits for the society and governments should subsidise them.

In conclusion, people have different opinions about funding creative artists. Some people think that they should be funded by governments, while others believe that they should be subsidised by other resources. In my point of view, I think governments should allocate some budget for amateur artists as they bring benefits for individuals and communities, but once they have become professional, they should seek sponsorship from other resources, and the government should stop providing the subsidy.

Sample 6:

Sponsoring aspiring artists is an age-old practice. By providing an allowance for living, studying, and presenting, musicians and painters can dedicate their time and energy to mastering their art. I believe that both the government and private sector should support such artists, as societies and organizations benefit greatly from art expression, the former through culture and latter through profit. 

Most societies define their culture through their music, dance, paintings, and literature which are created by artists through the centuries, and therefore, it is the responsibility of society to give support for such creativity. Since it is difficult for artists to make money directly through their efforts, taxpayers should dedicate a certain amount of government budget to make sure that artists can capture the pop-culture, historical events, and language of their era in their visual and auditory recordings and reflections. As in many parts of the world, the government of Canada supports aspiring artists early in their careers by giving funding to art schools, such as Emily Carr in Vancouver, as well as providing support for developed artists such as funding the Vancouver Art Gallery, in aims of preserving and building local culture.

In addition, the efforts of artists have also played a key role in the success and entertainment of individuals and organizations, so they too ought to ensure the financial prosperity of musicians, painters, and the like. The works of artists are often used in shows and exhibitions that advertise company brands and help organizations gain fame and fortune in their communities. Therefore, it is only fair that these companies reward the contributions of artists. I can clearly see this mutual benefit in the movie industry where billions of dollars are generated annually for companies like Paramount, Warner Bros., and Sony Pictures by the efforts of musicians, actors, and painters, so it only makes sense that they too support their art in turn. 

In conclusion, both national authorities and the private sector have a responsibility to nurture and promote artists. The clear reason for this is that both of these entities have much to gain from the expressions of musicians and painters, as these artists are fundamental to their long-term success and identity. Ultimately, financial support for artists from governments and organizations is a wise investment for the prosperity of all parties involved. 

Sample 7:

The discussion regarding whether creative artists like painters and musicians should receive financial backing from governments or alternative sources is highly debated. I hold the view that government funding is essential for preserving cultural heritage and ensuring that art is accessible to everyone.

On one hand, proponents of funding from alternative sources argue that governments have limited resources, and allocating public funds to the arts may divert resources from essential services like healthcare and education. The allocation of public funds is a complex process that involves balancing the needs of various sectors to effectively serve citizens. For instance, in Singapore, the government allocates a certain percentage of its budget to the arts. However, this has sparked debate over whether these funds should instead support critical services like healthcare and education. Additionally, relying on the market can sustain artists' creative pursuits. Artists can generate income through selling artwork, securing sponsorships, or crowdfunding. Jeff Koons, an American artist known for his sculptures, exemplifies this model, as his piece 'Balloon Dog (Orange)' sold for $58.4 million in 2019, highlighting the potential for artists to thrive independently.

On the other hand, supporters of government funding, myself included, argue that it is essential for promoting and preserving cultural heritage. By supporting artists, governments help maintain and enrich the cultural identity of a nation. Egypt, for example, has a history of promoting its cultural heritage through the preservation of ancient monuments and the promotion of traditional arts and crafts. Furthermore, government funding can make art more accessible to the public. Museums, galleries, and cultural events supported by public funds often offer free or affordable access to the arts. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the United States exemplifies this, as it funds a range of arts organizations and supports individual artists through fellowships and programs.

In conclusion, while alternative sources of funding for artists have their merits, I believe government support is crucial for preserving cultural heritage and making art accessible to all.

Sample 8:

Many believe that artists are entitled to federal financial assistance, while others feel that they should seek different sources of revenue. In my opinion, in certain cases government aid is justified but for the majority, supplying their own income is a catalyst to create quality artwork.

Proponents of this policy argue that it can free artists to be more creative. If an artist is concerned about paying their rent and buying groceries, they will have less time and energy to dedicate to their artwork. Even more importantly, financial considerations will influence their work. Many painters, writers, and musicians are more likely to produce commercially viable artworks rather than artistically honest ones. There have been numerous examples in the past, such as during the Renaissance when painters, sculptors and architects received patronage from the government or wealthy citizens and artistic expression flourished. However, these instances are distant exceptions, and most artists now operate in commercial fields.

The main reason this reform is unnecessary is that artists derive benefits from independence. An artist who must sell his or her artworks is motivated to strive for greater works. For example, an artist may begin creating specialized artworks and fail to find an audience. They might then modify their approach and still maintain a high degree of artistic integrity. This interplay with market forces can result in a better product. Noteworthy examples of this include the boom of the film industry in the twentieth century, the rise of stand-up comedians recently, and great works of literature that find large audiences such as the Harry Potter franchise.

In conclusion, despite notable instances of the success of government assistance, artists benefit from self-reliance. This will of course require them to carefully balance artistic and commercial considerations.

Sample 9:

The debate over whether government subsidies or alternative sources should underpin the financial support of creative artists like painters and musicians is multifaceted and nuanced. This essay contends that a synthesis of both funding avenues offers the most pragmatic solution for nurturing artistic talent, focusing on the preservation of cultural heritage, the autonomy of the artist, and the diverse funding models available.

Proponents of government funding for the arts highlight its critical role in preserving cultural heritage and fostering creative expression. State-sponsored programs can provide artists with the financial security necessary to hone their craft, leading to societal enrichment. For instance, the National Endowment for the Arts in the United States has played a pivotal role in bringing American culture to the international stage, supporting artists across various disciplines. Moreover, government funding ensures equitable access to the arts, allowing talents from underserved communities to emerge and flourish.

Conversely, critics argue that reliance on government funding may stifle artistic freedom, subjecting creatives to the whims of political agendas. They advocate for alternative funding sources, such as private patronage, crowdfunding, and commercial partnerships, which can offer artists more autonomy. The success of platforms like Patreon, where artists can earn direct support from their audience, exemplifies how alternative funding can not only sustain but also empower artists, fostering a direct connection with their patrons without governmental oversight.

In conclusion, while government support plays a crucial role in nurturing and preserving the arts, the importance of diversifying funding sources cannot be overstated. A symbiotic relationship between state patronage and alternative funding mechanisms is essential for a vibrant and autonomous artistic community. This balanced approach ensures both the preservation of cultural heritage and the freedom of artistic expression, contributing to a richer, more diverse cultural landscape.

Sample 10:

The question of whether public funds or private contributions should sustain creative artists ignites vigorous debate. I assert that a synergistic approach, combining governmental support with alternative funding mechanisms, is crucial for the flourishing of artistic innovation. This essay will delve into the advantages of government funding for safeguarding cultural heritage and artistic freedom, alongside the merits of alternative funding in fostering entrepreneurial spirit and community engagement among artists.

Government funding for artists is often championed for its ability to democratize access to the arts. By providing financial backing, governments ensure that artists can pursue their creative endeavors without the constraints of market demands, thereby enriching cultural landscapes and preserving national heritage. For instance, the National Endowment for the Arts in the United States has supported thousands of artists, allowing for the exploration of diverse and avant-garde artistic expressions that might not survive in a purely commercial environment.

Conversely, critics of government funding argue that reliance on state support may lead to censorship and stifling of creative freedom, advocating instead for alternative sources such as crowdfunding, sponsorships, and grants from private foundations. This model encourages artists to engage directly with their audience, fostering a more organic and sustainable artistic community. Moreover, it compels artists to be entrepreneurial, thereby potentially broadening their appeal and financial stability. The success of platforms like Patreon underscores the viability of this approach, enabling creators to receive direct support from fans and patrons.

In conclusion, while both government funding and alternative sources have their merits, a combined approach seems most prudent. Government support ensures the preservation of cultural diversity and artistic freedom, while alternative funding models promote innovation and financial independence. By leveraging the strengths of both, we can create a nurturing ecosystem for artists to thrive, ensuring the continued vibrancy of our cultural heritage.

Sample 11:

The activities of artists are sometimes intervened by financial problems, and some people believe that the financial support of governments is essential to secure their activity. However, others consider that the activity of artists should not be sponsored by governments. Though public funding is considered more stable and secured, they involve bureaucratic red tape and other hurdles. Therefore, in my opinion, artists should be supported preferably by private organizations as they can be readily reached.

On the one hand, people who believe that the financial support from governments is important may insist that a stable financial foundation is necessary for keeping the creativity of artists. It is true that the anxiety caused by financial problems may demotivate artists to make new paintings or sculptures, and some artists give up continuing their activity due to the lack of a stable funding. Hence, government funding is the most stable support for artists because if there is a state, there is a government. This notion makes government funding more secured and stable. Therefore, the financial support of governments would contribute to creating a good environment for artists.

On the other hand, funding from specific organizations can be more robust and efficient because they take less time and hurdles to disburse the money. As governments are concerned with versatile tasks, it involves multiple layers to verify and approve a fund. Also, sometimes it is too difficult to convince a government authority about the true appeal of the art and its required support. Moreover, when an artist needs any unexpected financial assistance in the middle of activities, it would be almost impossible to revise public funding because of bureaucratic red tape, whereas a specific private sponsoring entity can be reached in a split-second. Considering these, private sponsors are easy to find, convince and engage their funding with the artwork.

In conclusion, private sponsors can fund and serve an artist’s interest fast as they can be reached and engaged efficiently, whereas public funding involve complexities and dilly dally manners that might demoralize an artist at his or her work.

Sample 12:

It is an irrefutable fact that artists are the most prominent individuals throughout the world. Some people believe that it is the sole responsibility of the government to support them economically in an appropriate way, while the opposite school of thought propound that it can be given by other sources. In these forthcoming paragraphs, I will talk through both perspectives with credible illustrations along with my certitude in the latter stance.

To start with, there are a plethora of art forms which are renowned in each and every corner of the world. The artists are becoming famous through their ultimate hard work and efforts. However, during the primary stages of their career, they experience a colossal financial crisis. This eventually makes them depressed, and they are forced to cease their dreams and pursue an alternative job for their preliminary survival. In such circumstances, the government has to step in and look after their economic stability. They must foster artists to persuade their art rather than switching to other employments. The local authorities should identify people who are remarkably talented in the field of music, dance, painting and handicrafts and provide the necessary funds. To exemplify, they can organize cultural events intermittently to get acquainted with the skills of various artists and, if plausible, give away checks in the form of remuneration.

On the flip side, there are affluent individuals who are a part of the cinema industry. The music directors, composers, and dance choreographers must either employ local artists to perform for their compositions, or they can be provided with monetary aid. This motivates the public to persuade numerous art forms. Similarly, conglomerate organizations can collaborate with painters and craftsmen by sponsoring to sell their products at much higher costs. For instance, Amazon, which is predominantly known for its online shopping application, can make optimal deals with these people. Since it is produced by underprivileged people, customers would show sympathy and purchase many products or paintings. Thus, this creates a massive impact on their popularity and gradually helps them achieve a better financial position.

Taking everything into consideration, although the government volunteers in providing financial assistance to artists, the industrialists and film fraternity can help them not only financially but also by bestowing astonishing career opportunities.

Sample 13:

There are disparate views of who should bear the responsibility to fund the work of artists. Some argue that government should be the one who supports such endeavours while others think artists should seek different sources of funding. This essay discusses both views.

The work of an artist - in the form of painting, sculpture, or musical scores, is an expression of life. In this sense, an artist helps to promote quality of life through her creations. For this reason, it is justifiable for government to provide financial assistance to the artists, especially those talented ones who somehow lack the ability to attract funding from private sectors. Government is often in a better position to disseminate monetary assistance since it has access to wider resources through taxpayers’ money. For instance, the government could provide free-of-charge exhibition spaces for local budding artists to showcase their works for public views.

On the other hand, some people oppose the idea of government funding the artists’ work, arguing that those precious resources could have been diverted away from improving public amenities such as building roads to ease traffic congestions. Thus, artists should seek multiple sources of funding such as through private companies, not-for-profit organisations or high net-worth individuals. Seeking multiple sources of funding in this way can help to alleviate the pressure off of the government.

In my conclusion, we should not view funding of artists’ works as exclusively supported by government since both private and public sectors could play a part in helping to fund artists’ work.