The financial support of creative artists should rely on governments or other sources?
People have different views about the funding support of creative artists. While some people disagree with the idea of government support of artists, I believe that money of 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 statutures 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 funding our cities would be less much interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against goverment funding of art. The main reason for this view is that governments have more important concerns. For example, state budgets need to spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and security, among other areas. These public services are vital for a country to function properly, whearas the work of art, even in public spaces, is a luxury. Another reason of this view is that creative 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 creative artists should rely on alternative sources of financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.