Opinions diverge greatly on who should bring funding for emerging artist, while some people disagree with the idea of government support for artists. I believe that the money should come from both sides, the state and independent sources.
On one hand, the government is responsible for promoting the local cultural development. In this way, artistic representations can be seen as a way to encourage the culture. Special projects in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres, can take place with the cooperation between public entities and painters and musicians. Furthermore, local councils should pay creative artist to produce art about the city, this artwork may serve to educate people about the history, and act as landmarks or talking points for visitors and tourists. In fact, this investment in the city might become it attractive for foreign people.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government financing for art. The main reason for this view is that the national system has more important concerns. For example, state budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure, among other areas, which are vital for a country to function properly. Secondly, alternative sources have the facilities to organize middle events in a shorter time and be more efficient. Indeed, most of the independent artists are in touch with a greater range of associations and sponsors interested in the movement. For example, in Vietnam “Dancers of the town” is an initiative that has grown sharply in the last decades, conformed by dancers of all over the country, each year new talents are the face of famous brands which are supported by companies.
By way of conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of financial support, but in my opinion, government should ensure the development as well.
Opinions diverge
greatly
on who should bring funding for emerging
artist
, while
some
people
disagree with the
idea
of
government
support for
artists
. I believe that the money should
come
from both sides, the state and independent sources.
On one hand, the
government
is responsible for promoting the local cultural development. In this way, artistic representations can be
seen
as a way to encourage the culture. Special projects in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city
centres
, can take place with the cooperation between public entities and painters and musicians.
Furthermore
, local councils should pay creative
artist
to produce art about the city, this artwork may serve to educate
people
about the history, and act as landmarks or talking points for visitors and tourists. In fact, this investment in the city might become it attractive for foreign
people
.
On the other hand
, I can understand the arguments against
government
financing for art. The main reason for this view is that the national system has more
important
concerns.
For example
, state budgets need to
be spent
on education, healthcare, infrastructure, among other areas, which are vital for a country to function
properly
.
Secondly
, alternative sources have the facilities to organize middle
events
in a shorter time and be more efficient.
Indeed
, most of the independent
artists
are in touch with a greater range of associations and sponsors interested in the movement.
For example
, in Vietnam “Dancers of the town” is an initiative that has grown
sharply
in the last decades, conformed by dancers of all over the country, each year new talents are the face of
famous
brands which
are supported
by
companies
.
By way of conclusion, there are
good
reasons why
artists
should rely on alternative sources of financial support,
but
in my opinion,
government
should ensure the development
as well
.