Do you agree or disagree that governments should spend money on other things than art even though art helps develop quality in people’s life? Use specific reasons and examples to support your position.

Art is an expression that represents the culture or tradition. Societies with a heritage in the art have long been considered culturally developed. Although art is a one of factors that enhance citizen’s life, authorities around the world should invest on huge of money other significant things than art. I strongly agree with this statement for two reasons, described in the following paragraphs. First of all, it is clearly that art is interested in minority of people. At the present, topics about art is rarely mentioned in societies because people in majority usually interested in other activities than art. For example, sports, people enjoy watching football games that can be seen in every stadium which usually have crowed people. Consequently, the fact that only a few citizens attend in art, so it is impossible that art will bring quality in to societies. Secondly, authorities should invest money on health and education to improve people’s life rather than to funding projects to improve art. Sufficient health and education lead to the good quality of people, which is the method that perfect governments should do. There are many regions that some groups of individuals cannot access to these welfares because the benefits are distributed unequally. This is the fact that governments should recognize and adjust. For instance, they might spend money to build more educational and medical institutes in several regions thoroughly. In conclusion, I totally agree with this viewpoint since it seems to me that the money should invested in other compelling activities such as healthiness and schooling than art. Moreover, art-lovers are typically in minority because there are have other activities which are more popular.