Government investment in the arts, such as music and theatre, is a waste of money. Governments must invest this money in public services instead. To what extend do you agree with this statement?

In

this

day and age,

art

surrounds us, people in every location, without us being aware of it.

Although

, it is argued by some individuals that states subsidies that are provided to

art

-practitioners are a misspend of money. I strongly disagree with

this

mindset. From my standpoint, the practice of

art

has played an essential role in shaping and nurturing society and culture.

Thus

, it should be seen as a sector worth investing rather than a social burden.

Firstly

, one major reason that

art

-creator should receive governments' patronage is that rapid social development and modernizing is causing the loss of the tradition value worldwide.

Moreover

, monetary incentives could assist the arts to be conserved and revived.

For example

, in Brazil, we have many festivals that receive investments from the private and public sectors. For

this

reason, they still exist, and in my opinion, they are unbelievable huge thanks to sufficient investments.

Secondly

,

art

is an incentive for tourism. Foreign visitors tend to explore traditional arts who prefer to listening to certain typical musical or watch a festival that only that country has. Take as an example the carnival in Brazil, that motivates people from all over the come to travel and watch it. It goes without saying, the more monetary incentives are granted to

art

enthusiasts, the more tourism is promoted.

Last

but not least, the

art

has existed as long as the man has.

Therefore

, arts are crucial to the existence of human beings because they are responsible to shape our ideas and provide us with a deeper understanding of our emotions, self-awareness, and more. To conclude, as I see it, there are clear benefits of investing in the conservation of arts, and contrary to what some people say, it is not a waste of money.