Some people argue that arts, such as paintings and music, are a waste of money and the government should spend this money on other public services. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? v.1

Subsidizing arts branches such as drawing or music by governments, recently, has become an extremely controversial issue. A number of people believe that the money, which is spent on such fields, should be saved to benefit other public services, while others, including me, argue that supporting arts financially is indispensable on account of its pivotal role in mirroring cultures and raising emotional generations. To commence with, I and advocates of the approach of adopting arts governmentally contend that it is paramount for depicting and documenting the shape of countries` cultures. Take, for instance, the paintings of old Egyptian civilization, which give detailed pieces of information about this era and the pristine traditions of Egyptians. Therefore, had not been for such images, which are protected and maintained by government, the ethnic cultural aspects would have been missed. This why I insist that in order to keep nations` history, governments should assume responsibility for spending on arts. Further and even more importantly, though, playing on musical instruments, singing, or even dancing aids, firmly, in building healthy individuals emotionally. This matter, which was shown by recent researches that clarified that musicians and dancers are often more balanced psychologically. As they could express their feelings by arts means and learn to be more considerate and tender in dealing with others. Hence, such sorts of arts have to be subsidized to raise sound society and minimize the rate of psychological issues. By way of conclusion, whereas some people claim that arts should be replaced by other public services to be subsidized, I wholeheartedly believe that these arts worth to be a chief part from government`s attention.