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 extent do you agree with this statement?

the

last

few decades have seen heated arguments that governments should finance public

services

instead

of spending their budgets on

music

.

Although

I agree that governments investments in local

services

play a very important role, I think that the proper funding of

arts

sectors is

also

for

society

. On the one hand, the government should definitely allocate a large part of its budget to public

services

.

this

economy sector determines the overall quality of life, ensuring that all basic

services

like schools, hospitals, and roads, are available to all citizens irrespective of their income and social status. Public

services

satisfy the primary needs of the

society

and

thus

need proper funding, while artists and musicians are not curing diseases or building houses, so their role is secondary.

For example

, any country can live without

music

concerts, but the absence of medicine will create significant problems. That's why the government should adequately finance public

services

in the

first

place.

On the other hand

,

arts

,

music

and theatre are not a waste of money, since they are integrated with part of

society

Replace the word

social

show examples

culture and intellectual development and amusement.

Firstly

, art and

music

draw people attention to diverse phenomena and represent the inward significance of things. Quite often a single drawing, piece or song can exhort myriads of people to reconsider their attitude towards some situation.

This

way,

arts

serves as a major source of nations personal and intellectual development. To conclude, though I agree that the government should allocate a large part of its budget to

such

urgent needs of the

society

like public

services

, I think that

arts

,

music

and theatre should

also

be financed.