Goverments investment in the arts, such as music and theatre, is a waste of money. Goverments must invest this money in public services instead. Do you agree or disagree?

It is often said that financing on the different subjects of the

art

such

as

music

and theatre by policies is wasting. Money must invest in public services

such

as local facilities. From my point of ,

view

Add an article

a view

the view

show examples

I strongly disagree with the idea that public services are more important than

art

.

Firstly

, one of the conspicuous reasons for disargument is the benefit of

art

in mental health. For ,example

music

is a crucial method of treatment for mental diseases witch is called

music

therapy.

This

would tackle the problem of using drugs in psycho illnesses

such

as depression and OCD quickly by just putting a beautiful piece of

music

in psychiatric hospitals.

This

makes it clear that governments should invest more in developing the

music

industry.

Secondly

, another significant reason is making less the dependence on foreign arts and artists by advancing in conventional and domestic diverse types of

art

. For ,instance the politicians could restrict money and allocate a dramatic budget for constructing new

music

studios in cities to record domestic songs. Another example is showing traditional arts and local craftsmen on TV by adverts for presenting to people.

This

would help to retain an indigenous culture in a nation. It becomes apparent why investing in

art

is one of the most essential responsibilities for governments. To summarise, I completely disagree with the idea that investing in the fields of

art

is wastage. I

also

believe that

art

is the most important object for retaining a culture. It is predicted that the positive effects on the debate over financing on

art

will always be greater than the adverse effects.