Many governments in the world spend large amounts of money on art which helps to develop quality in people’s life. However, governments should spend money on other things rather than art. Do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion.

Issues related to an

art

budget are frequently discussed these days. It is argued that due to the limit of national budgets, other things apart from

art

should be invested by governments for the development of all citizen's life. I firmly agree with

this

assertion and the explanation will be discussed in the following paragraphs. The principal reason is that supporting money on

art

has an advantage in some particular jobs;

such

as an artist and an architect.

This

means that

art

cannot ensure to increase the quality of life standards,

such

as an economic section for most people in a nation. Generally, salary workers are the most popular career in many countries;

thus

the worker needs should be focused more than

art

. A good case in

this

point is governments should give more attention to public transportation topics because insufficient travelling can impact their works better than spend too much money on decorating some museums. An additional point is that

art

matters are often used in terms of improving human emotions rather than helping improve the quality of their life.

Hence

,

firstly

, settles should be greatly acquired basic education. In the modern world, education is an essential key relevant in developing a nation, especially in developing countries.

For example

, over recent years, the government of Singapore has massively invested in former education,

as a result

, Singapore is one of the most influential countries in Asia. All things considered,

although

art

is important for its values in various beneficial ways, other sections should be more realized for getting higher investment.

Therefore

, governments should have a serious awareness of balancing their budgets and the compatible issue of the country.