Governments should focus their spending on public services rather than on such music and painting. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The dispute over the priority of social spending is an eternal struggle. There are dozens of various opinions and it is not easy to find the most proper decision. Advocates of fine art pretend that every society can cherish fine objects. I reckon that it depends on society's level of welfare.

Nevertheless

, let us expatiate on the controversy between common public needs and diversion.

Firstly

, being a painting or music sponsor in a state of poverty is decidedly a weird idea.

For example

, you can not spend money on buying or producing contemporary masterpieces when half of the citizens are deprived. You should raise enough funds to give your people basic amenities,

such

as forage, accommodation and schools.

Furthermore

, the level of public consciousness should be high enough to cherish art.

For instance

, a deprived citizen of Sudan can not debate the difference between versatile schools of paintings or genres of music. They have nothing to eat and it is their only everyday incentive. A public enquiry for diversion grows up only in benevolent circumstances.

Moreover

,

such

amusement sponsorship could easily lead to riots.

Similarly

, it is hard to feed people with the help of music and sculptures In conclusion, I figure out that every government should fulfil people's constitutional demands

first

.

Hence

it's reasonable to prioritize funds for public well-being and education ,especially in emerging countries. The public will give an enquiry for fine arts when it will be ready for it according to the level of education and awareness.