It is argued that it would be more beneficial if more money were invested in public facilities rather than on supporting arts. I fully disagree with this statement because I am convinced that the art is necessary for society development and for improvement of a local economy.
Spendings on arts are not wasted funds because it can help local community to spend time in a valuable way. When the city has no art gallery people never look for it, even when they are travelling. However, if in the region exists some kind of exhibition people often set up art clubs and are more educated in this field. For instance, when the region posses a music school the community can organize multiple concerts for locals. As a result their community grows through socializing and developing the passion together, and despite some costs of these facilities, the authorities still manage to invest in public goods.
Not only does the community spirit improve but also regional economy benefits. In fact, tourists are looking for unique places to visit and art exhibitions or local events are one of them. Visitors, especially from abroad, during their trip want to explore regional art, even more when it is already famous. That is why the investments in art can turn out to be profitable because popularity of these kind of places is connected with tourist’s expenditures on hotels, restaurants and other attractions. It can be clearly seen in Rome where the Louvre museum is source of income for the whole city.
In conclusion, arts still should be funded by the governments because it allows local societies to grow and the region or even whole country can become famous touristic destination which results in numerous advantages.