Most artists earn low salaries and should therefore receive funding from the government in order for them to continue with their work. To what extent do you agree? v.6

What is art? Art is omnipresent. It is not merely a collection of paintings, but its found in the buildings we so very enjoy as we drive or walk by, in the food that is made for us in a restaurant, in the movies we watch and the songs we listen to, in the poems we appreciate. One needs any form of art incorporated in their daily life preventing it from being bleak and mundane. It is a common notion that artists such as painters and poets earn far less or barely the minimum labour wage. It depends on the number of projects or pieces that are sold. A larger number of them being uncertain and an unstable source of income. Therefore it a proposed suggestion that the government should aid the artists and receive funding in for them to earn a living and to continue with their work. In my opinion, there lies a range of artists. From craftsmen and painters to authors and poets to movie stars and singers. Not all of them earn the minimum wage or below. In fact some of the artists mentioned seem to be well endowed than most with white collar jobs. If anyone were to be supported, it should be the daily wage service workers like the factory workers, cleaners etc. Since they are not only essential in all aspects economically and socially but they slave through to earn a minimum daily wage. Secondly, an artist is like a service worker. Their service depends on popularity. The well sought after and more appreciated their work is the higher the demand. However, struggling arts can be offered a plan by the government in order to kick start their career and help them with resources. Overall, I don't completely agree that all artists needed to be funded by the government but however, a well suited plan and eligibility criteria could be produced for struggling artists for further embark.