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?

There is a common conviction that efforts

government

makes to support

arts

are worthless, and

instead

it is more beneficial to allocate a budget on public

services

. While I partially agree with

this

belief, I

also

think that the

arts

sector has a high potential to benefit the country. On the one hand, the reason why governments may favour supporting public

services

on top of

arts

is that

this

field is guaranteed to bring evident improvements to the population. Since the public is highly concerned about public

services

such

as hospital, schools, transportation, pouring money on these fields is a straightforward method for

government

to feed the needs of citizens.

Moreover

, it does not take long until changes will be noticeable to the public, unlike

arts

, where benefits may come gradually.

On the other hand

, investments made to back up

arts

,

such

as music or filming industries, promise a potentially high return on investment rates. Usually, there is a lot of fortune that goes around celebrities

such

as singers or filmmakers.

Government

can take advantage of them in terms of their contributions to its budget. Another point to consider is that entertainment

such

as theatres or music is an integral part of society. Eliminating them from the lives of people may cause a decline in a social and cultural level of a population.

Hence

, the

government

cannot neglect to fund the

arts

section. To conclude, at a glance, it may seem that investing in public

services

has always been a priority since it brings obvious advantages to society.

However

, governments

also

have to be considerate about funding art due to its role in the community and its high profit if continuously supported.