Most artists earn low salaries and should therefore receive funding from the government in order for them to continue their work. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is believed that most of the artists are underpaid and the government should help them financially so that they can continue their work. (Poor paraphrasing. LR issue.) It is believed that most artists get insufficient remuneration from their work and need government support to survive. I agree with the notion that they have low salaries as there are quite limited platforms in a city to showcase their talents the talent of artists, but government funding is unlikely to solve this problem. I disagree with the statement that the government should help them by providing funds. I believe that the government should build new art platforms to support them.
In metropolitan cities, while there are
4-5 malls for shopping, 14-15 food outlets for eating and 13-14 night clubs for celebrating birthdays (You are focusing your energy on unnecessary details.) several shopping malls, food outlets, and night clubs, the number of art museums and drama theatres are only 1-2 there is hardly a museum or a theater , which are not even maintained properly. (You convey your ideas in a large number of words. That’s a LR issue. Convey them in as few words as possible.) As a result, a few artists can reach the audience through these art places while most of them are not able to show their talent to the public and earn sufficient/ enough money. A survey in Chandigarh revealed that there is only a single art gallery where only ten paintings are allowed to showcase at a time. The space is mostly occupied by renowned painters of the city while the other painters use Instagram and Youtube channels, where earnings are quite minimal.
To support the artists who earn considerably less than others, the government should build art museums and
drama theatres so that they can get opportunities to present their work to the public earn well. (Explain the idea in one more sentence. More museums will not directly lead to more earnings. Do not jump. Proceed in a logical manner.) Also, the people will have the change to purchase the works new and budding artists and this will increase their income. If the government provides funds directly to them, although it will help them to meet their daily expenses, but it will hamper their growth in a long run. (1) Whereas, the infrastructural development will not only help them to sell their artwork but also encourage them to work harder.
1. Observe this sentence carefully. It is good in isolation. But, when you try to look in the context of the previous sentence, it does not fit. The previous sentence is about earnings from theatres and museums. This sentence is about advantages and disadvantages of government funding. Where is the link? You’ve tried to establish the link through the next sentence. But, that has broken the flow of the argument. Let us rewrite it: Unlike government funds that help artists survive in the short term, this approach (= museums and theatres) is beneficial in the long term as it makes artists independent. For example, when the city of Tokyo opened two open-air theatres, the city’s residents preferred to watch live shows by local artists instead of watching movies in theatres. This increased the incomes of actors, make-up people, directors, and play writers.
To recapitulate, it is an undeniable fact that most artists have low income due to the limited availability of art platforms. According to me, the government should encourage them by opening art galleries and organizing art workshops in a city instead of giving them financial aid.