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. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about the funding of creative artists. While some people disagree with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for 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 centers. In Liverpool, for example, there are several new statues 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 much less interesting and attractive.

On the other hand, I can understand the view taken by many people that artists should not expect the state to fund their work. Most musicians and the majority of painters make a living by performing or selling their artistic creations to fans or collectors; they would not expect to receive any help from their governments. Industry sponsorships can be another useful source of revenue for creative artists. For example, media companies like the mobile giant Apple are often willing to pay huge fees to inspirational designers who work on their advertising campaigns, product packaging, and even the appearance of their electronic devices. Finally, some artists may be lucky enough to receive donations from wealthy individuals.

In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.