Should the government support artists or should artists support themselves? As imagination and origination serve as twin towers in art, artists should be relatively free and out of control from the government. Therefore, people are often provided with the illusion that artists are supposed to finance themselves to avoid such limitation. In my view, however, without the financial support from the government people cannot have convenient and accessible way to enjoy the art, which is a necessity for a better quality of life and there will be countless “starving artists”.
Let’s take a look at our environments. If we look outside, we can see so much beauty that accompanies nature. Skilled artists have built sculptures, painted pictures, and drawings that signify the advancements of civilization, and tell a rich story of a culture’s history. These artifacts will become an invaluable part of the history that will be passed down to generations later. Thus, the beauty that is built today will be honored tomorrow. It’s not just the beauty; it’s how we feel when we look at beauty. The good thing about art is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
As results, art work generally aids in improving the overall happiness level. For example, if someone is depressed, being able to see a lovely painting or drawing will instantly give them a better feeling, and sometimes a sense of hope. But people usually either have no enough money or lack of art awareness, so the government should be able to support artists to make the art more accessible to ordinary people, by building art in the city or offering free art exhibition for citizens.
More than anything, we have too many “starving artists” who are extremely talented, but can’t find regular day jobs like other professions. Therefore, their income is often very sporadic and unpredictable, so it’s really difficult to budget and make a decent living. The word “starving artists” evokes images of artists who are “dying.”...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document