It is argued that arts, music and theatre are not as worth investing as public services. I only partly agree with the statement. I believe that the first mentioned area may be profitable enough for both their investors and people in need, while the reduction in it will highly likely enrich the economy, due to boosted public service.
When exhibited with good organisation, the area of arts attracts a lot of investment and may be an important distributor of funds. The income of museums and theatres, providing visitors with impressive exhibitions or plays, may be divided into several sums aimed to be spent on different things. For instance, the Hermitage is an extremely popular museum that organises adorable exhibitions, always popular between tourists, leaving a huge benefit for owners. But these sums are always shared between the needs of the museum (reconstruction, wages etc) and charity. The Hermitages owner always donates to art schools, so that they could provide children with free education.
However, the arts sector holds the potential employees that could fulfill the sector of public service with needed workers. After the reduction of funds in theatres and music centres, the released working sources may save the public services from a lack of specialists. Nowadays, the area of arts is overwhelmed by people, so that there are a lot of professionals who seek the job, so the Government announces the reduction in the area and offers special courses to change the qualification. Due to this method the lack of employees is shortening in the area that is directly connected with the states economic prosperity and stability (the public services).
In conclusion, despite a big sense in shortening the funds of the area of arts to fulfill the lack of it in public services, the arts, museums and theatres are still worth investing due to the profit they can give to their owners and potential beneficiaries in need.