People believe that arts like painting and music does not directly improve the quality of life, and therefore they think government’s money should be spent on other things. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the contemporary era, there is a heated argument over the issue that a living standard does not depend upon the arts and organisations have to invest their funds into another field which leads to improving the status of their citizens. A lion's share society favours it, however the rest go averse to it. The following paragraphs would highlight my personal perspective along with an apt example. To commence with the given notion, there is a number of myriad things to be shared in its favour. First and foremost, the class of any country depends upon their poverty and employment ratio. Therefore, all the management should focus on their food and income sources which directly assist in surging their lifestyle rather than investing money in the entertainment sectors. Secondly, some other factors play such a part and parcel role to improve living statuses like environmental conditions and medicals sectors. For instance, if people are getting good air quality in the country so it means they have less pollution rate which is a key factor for their health. Moreover, medical facilities lead to reflect society's standard so governments can provide free treatment benefits to their public by funding it. On the logger's head, some critics go against the above-discussed assertions. Many people argued that arts like dancing or singing helps to improve the overall standard of society and it also boosts their creative level. Furthermore, these type of skills gives much curiosity in the life makes it more entertaining. In the nutshell, I am of the opinion that other factors like health and economy play an important role in increasing the status of life rather than fun activities.