Prompt: 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.

Some people have views that governments should fund artists, while there are opponents who argue that artists should support themselves. I believe that governments should help them. Ċ On the one hand, it can be claimed that governments should pay more attention to other more important things. Those who hold this view claim that art is a type of spiritual requirement of humans, and what they consider is that some other areas, which are more essential, also need financial support, such as education, agriculture and medical care. In addition, another reason for this opinion is that artists are actually just another type of occupation like scientists, workers and farmers. Therefore, those who live by painting, composing and other types of art can sell their works to earn money that can support their lives. Ċ On the other hand, I personally agree with those who are concerned that governments should support these artists. Firstly, in order to generate perfect work, artists usually need to spend an amount of time and energy. For instance, The Mona Lisa, which is famous around the world, took six years to complete it. So during that time, artists have to pause if they do not have either enough savings or external financial help. Secondly, some artworks are not recognized when artists are still alive, which leads to a situation where artists cannot earn money by selling their works. A good example of this is that the famous painter Van Gogh committed suicide due to a series of mental and life pressures caused by poverty. If he had gotten government aid like some living allowance, he might have made more great works. Ċ In conclusion, there are convincing arguments both for and against artists' financial aid, but I believe that governments should assist them.