You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
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.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
You should write at least 250 words.
Sample answer 1:
Although Proficient creators like musicians and painters are the assets of our society, whether they should be given sufficient fiscal support by their own authorities has triggered spirited debates. Some assert that government is obliged to generate money for their skilfulness, whereas others contend that alternative ways are to be taken into account. In my perspective, the latter should be considered highly, for they provide clear-cut advantages.
The idea is that government must lend a helping hand to its artists does have a handful benefits. One reason why people propose this is that artists could easily collect reasonable income to bring forth remarkable creations. The perceived general idea is that this readily available fund would encourage the talents to bring out the best in them, which, in turn, enhances remarkable achievements not only to the artists but also to the government. Nevertheless, it is highly likely that, if they get necessary resources as easily as ABC, they would develop laziness and this drawback retard the overall cultural promotion and improvement of their nation.
However, the counter arguments of supporting talents financially seem more likely to be effective rationally than the former. This is partly because people who work hard to earn money for their creative works will definitely value their job and thereby they strive tirelessly to achieve their dreams. They will, for example, estimate the needed costs and use it adequately. It is also relevant that artists can do further alterations in their creations as they are not bound by any rules and regulations, and they can clearly do whatever they want for better accomplishments. Moreover, each and every authority is mandated to rather consider other big issues, which is chiefly important to protect its public.
To put it in a nutshell, while getting promoted economically by the government is supportive, I believe, other options such as private funds are to be chosen, in addition to the government budget, it would be argued, could be allocated for other necessary purposes.
[ Written by – Syama Stephen S ]
Sample answer 2:
It is unquestionable that one very complex issue in today’s world is the funding support to creative artists. While there is a controversy that should be supported and funded by the government. I do believe that there is also a case for saying that they should be funded by alternative sources.
It is fairly easy to understand the reason why government support is vital to artists and their projects. Perhaps by considering that proportion of artists are living in poverty. In fact, only a few artists, who have achieved success in their fields, are able to support themselves, whereas others are still struggling for life and some of them even living below the poverty line. Likewise, the construction of a non-profitable art gallery, which helps the public to develop a sense of art, requires vast sums of money. Therefore, without financial funding by government, our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.
However, we can fairly understand that artists should no emphasis on the state to fund their work. While most musicians and the majority of painters make a living by performing or selling their artistic creations to fans or collectors. Besides, as to painters or musicians, they can expect to gain their income as tutors giving individuals lessons. In short, these artists are capable of gaining financial support in a number of ways.
In conclusion, I believe that there are good reasons why artists should not only rely on the government for supporting them, but the alternative sources of financial support should be suggested.
[ Written by – Ray Looi]
Sample answer 3:
More and more artists are naturally born since the dawn of time. As a result, it has been the subject of discussion on whether the state or a non-government institution should support them financially. These points of view will be discussed in this order.
It is believed by some that the country’s administration should finance the creative artists. For instance, under President Ferdinand E. Marcos regime, all of our skilfully created arts by the Filipino artists were provided by all the helps they needed. Like Fernando Amorsolo, one of the most famous painters in the Philippines was funded by the late President Marcos and even his first exhibition held in the National Museum of the country. Thus, he was known by visitors who came and saw his creations internationally, and this led him to exhibit his paintings in different countries. He made our country known around the world and he is indeed a Filipino pride.
On the other hand, many argue that NGOs (Non-government Organisations) should be the one financing them. An idea that may support this is that the government has a lot of funding already and they cannot afford to finance these creators of arts, so it is better to ask for a help to a private institution. For example, the Pro-mil Milk Company has funded the concert of Sarah Geronimo in Araneta Coliseum. She is the most popular singer in the Philippines because she sings magnificently and can touch our deepest emotions. In fact, this private company can make a lot of profit in her concert.
In conclusion, for reasons related to the Philippine pride and private institution making of profit when financing arts creators is supported and refuted by many. However, after analysing these two points of view, it is clear that the Philippine government should finance them. Thus, the argument that the state should financially support creative artists can be supported and expected to be realised.
[ Written by – Rona Lyn Olivar ]
Sample answer 4:
A group of people believe that governments should provide subsidies for unpopular or amateur artists, while other people think that artistic people should be subsidised from another resource. The following essay will discuss both opinions, but in my personal opinion, I believe that governments should fund them before they are sponsored by alternative sources.
Several people believe that creative artist such as street painters and musicians should not be subsidised by the governments. They think that art activities are not the basic need of human beings, and governments should focus on more important matters. For example, rather than spending some budget for these street artists, the fund could be allocated for improving the public education sectors, public transportations or public facilities. They think that creative artist should seek sponsorship from private institutions or private companies.
For several reasons, some people believe that creative artist should be funded by governments. Firstly, many amateur painters have painted some of the public areas, and they have changed the look and the atmosphere of these places from a negative aura into a positive one. Secondly, some talented artists have made artistic sculptures and placed them in public areas such as in the parks, and they have made the parks become more beautiful and attractive. Thirdly, many amateur musicians who are performing in public areas, such as in subways or in bus terminals have entertained the public with their music. Therefore, it is undeniable that the existence of these artists brings benefits for the society and governments should subsidise them.
In conclusion, people have different opinions about funding creative artists. Some people think that they should be funded by governments, while others believe that they should be subsidised by other resources. In my point of view, I think governments should allocate some budget for amateur artists as they bring benefits for individuals and communities, but once they have become professional, they should seek sponsorship from other resources, and the government should stop providing the subsidy.
[ Written by – Darwin Lesmana ]