Some people believe that the government should provide financial assistance to all artists including painters, musicians and poets. Others think that it is a waste of money. Discuss both points of view and give your opinion.

Concerning the fact whether artists should obtain subsidies there are two opinions. One side thinks that it is a total waist of government money, whilst others say that all art forms should receive financial support including painters, musicians and poets.

Regarding the first point of view, I can agree to a certain kind of level. It is a fact that artists who perform in popular kinds of art, like pop singers or international circus artists, do not really need financial assistance. There will be enough people who come and watch their concerts or go to their shows. In contradiction, artists that perform in more alternitive forms of art, like poetry, new kinds of music forms or painters who have an experimental style, might need financial support in the early stage of their career.

Other people state that all kinds of art forms should receive financial government support without making a difference regarding to the popularity of the art or artist. One can certainly state that it is not proper to give all artists the same form of subsidies. One could financialy assist the artist in the beginning of his career, but once he or she has gained some fame, it is no longer necessary to support that artist and the money can better be spend on a new artist.

In conclusion, it can be said that there are arguments for both opinions. Artists should not be allowed to get government financial assistance througout their career. Nevertheless, for some forms of art it can be granted in the beginning, so they have the possibility to get their art form known to the public.