Government investment in the arts, such as music and theater, is a waste of money. Governments must invest this money in public services instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

When most governments invest in

arts

such

as portraits, music and cinema, it is often criticized by locals because they believe that more important issues should be solved

first

. While it is important for countries to invest in

arts

, I believe public services should be taken into account.

Firstly

, what most locals do not grasp is how profitable is investing in

arts

. To illustrate, Salvator Mundi's famous portrait that dates back to the 1600s was sold for 450 million, dollars. Not only do

arts

make a profit by being sold, but indeed millions of holidaymakers visit tourist attractions to watch theatres and visit museums that contain aesthetic old and modern

arts

.

For instance

, the louvre museum in Paris gets 2.8 million visitors annually. The results of investing in

arts

, in the long run, maybe so worth it.

In addition

, spreading

arts

all over the country stimulate innovation.

In other words

, visiting theatres, operas and cinemas is proven to be very healthy for both adults and children.

This

is because it will probably broaden our horizons into different cultures by listening to their musical instruments and watching their dances. It is important to emphasize that I believe that all these advantages could not be gained if public educational, medical and political institutions were not funded.

For example

, it is not realistic to ask low-income peasants to give local theatres a weekly visit if government officials cannot make ends meet. In conclusion, while

arts

are so profitable and it is great to host artists in the city in order to spread creativity and openness. I believe that it cannot supersede other public services and some balance should be done to maximise comprehensive progression.