Should the government support artists or should artists support themselves?1 As is known to all, work of art is a significant factor in promoting cultural deposits of a country. Even though some artworks were paid attention by almost every person, the artists who have devoted themselves to those incredible works were ignored in the most cases. The fact is artists can not support themselves ,which leads to a consequence that artists should have other sponsors supporting them for the sake of art. Granted, supporting themselves is vital for artists to some extent, which is a basic ability to survive. As we can see that the process of creating great works costs arms and legs because of expensive painting tools, which makes most young artists fail to afford, so it is far beyond to say that artists have the ability to support themselves. On the one hand, some traditional cultures are disappearing, only few people can inherit it, artists should be supported for the sake of traditionalism. Great as it is to inherit traditional cultures, however most artists are not conscious of the significance of inheritance. Take Chinese paper cut for example, given the past, in ancient ages, people used paper to decorate their room to make it more beautiful and lovely. People would love to sacrifice their time to cut papers for a desirable shape. But now we can use light or different kind of factory-made adornment to accomplish it. Therefore, that kind of artists’ income is often very sporadic, and unpredictable, so it is really difficult to budget and make a decent living. We see so many “starving artists” who are extremely talented but can’t take being an artist as a normal job . The word “starving artists” evokes images of artists who are “dying”. However, what’s really happening is that “art itself” is slowly dying. Letting artists get rational support from government is the least we can do, and its government’s responsibility.