Government investment in the arts such as music and theatre, is a waster of money.

Governments must
invest this money in public services instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
statement?

Opinions are divided whether the authorities should only fund public services and completely forsake
arts. Personally , I disagree with this approach , although it may be suitable for underdeveloped
countries.

The support for the sole focus on public services highlights its practical benefits. In many countries,
especially third countries with limited resources, residents are not likely to have access to healthcare,
education as well as decent transport, which lowers their standards of living. In light of this, spending
money on arts may not provide immediate tangible advantages to society compared to investing in areas
such as medical care , infrastructure , affordable education , among others. Simultaneously , those who
hold a utilitarian perspective may question the value of funding a large-scale public art installation that
only appeals to a niche audience. They might argue that the funds could have been better utilized to
address societal needs. For a prime example, according to The US News, the prioritization of economic
growth and immediate societal needs can lead to skepticism about the value of artistic investments. This
is evident in debates surrounding public funding for the arts, where there are recurring discussions
about the allocation of resources and whether public money should be directed towards artistic projects.

Nevertheless, I contend that under normal circumstances, investing in the arts can yield various
economic gains. For a pertinent example of this is the Korean entertainment industry, including K-pop
music and K-dramas, has garnered massive international success and has earned billions of dollars. This
cultural export has generated substantial employment , tourism and revenue showcasing the economic
impact of the arts. Obviously , this example does not mean that art should be prioritized over public
services, nor guarantee that funding the arts would lead to an economic resurgence because this
instance may represents only a portion of countries. However, it does show that art is not a waste of
money , in fact, it has sufficient financial potential to be invested in. In addition to this, accessing to the
arts enhances the quality of life in communities. Cultural experiences, such as attending concerts,
exhibitions, or theater performances, enrich individuals' lives, provide entertainment, and offer a means of
escape or reflection. Therefore, public services should not be deemed as the most practical solution.

In conclusion, in countries where the citizenry's life is undermined by low quality public services, it is
advisable to cut off art and concentrate on overcoming these limitations. However, in other cases, art
should receive adequate funding due to its potential merits provided that public services are sufficient.