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.

It has always been heavily debated whether creative artists should receive financial assistance from respective Governments or if alternative sources, namely private investors, should support them. While it is important for any country to create and possess cultural legacy, I am sure that it is not the Government who should be paying for it. It is true that artworks usually depict cultural and historic heritage of a given country. They serve to educate people and are of public significance, thus it is important to have stable funding for their creation. Therefore, some people prefer that Governments use taxpayers’ money to subsidize artists and cultural events by providing comfortable conditions or free spaces to use. As a result, artists don’t have to bother about family upkeep, can focus on their work and, consequently, come up with masterpieces, which will eventually bring recognition not only to the artist but also to the country. On the other hand, Governments have too many critical issues to worry about. Thus, it is vital that they concentrate on sustainable development of countries and creating strong economies, since only mature economies produce the need for luxury, which artworks represent. In a financially sound country, creative artists have more possibilities to get funding for their projects or sell their works. There is a good chance that a talented artist can raise a lot of money from several different sources, for example, to organize an art exhibition, so there is no point in putting extra burden on the Governments. To conclude, I guess there are many good reasons why artists should be funded and pampered by Governments, however, I think, states should rather be concerned with strategic projects aimed at consistent development of the country.