It is often argued that authorities should allocate money on art including music and painting rather than on society facilities, as well as services. While some individuals may have opposite opinions, I completely disagree with it for several reasons.
One of the underlying reasons why I disagree is that public services are essential over art facilities. The primary responsibility of any governments is to maintain societal progress and ensure holistic well-being of citizens. Public services such as healthcare, infrastructure, and education form the societal bond of a stable environment. For instance, a medical system directly impacts life expectancy and workforce productivity. Provided that the government neglects these sectors to fund art galleries or art structures, it pose risks to social instability and an economic degradation. In my view, aesthetic enrichment should only be considered once to the ordinary life and developmental needs of the population are met.
Another key factor contributing to my disagreement is the risk of social imbalance, as expensive art projects often benefit only a small contribution, whereas the majority of the population continues to struggle with fundamental economic issues. For instance, large-scale contribution from authorities and organisations to art development may lead to dissatisfaction, as well as create a sense of money financed to air. As a result, new concerns will be added while society cannot handle with other issues at the same time.
To sum up, I firmly believe that authorities should allocate their finance and time on public services, instead of spending on music or painting, as it is important over art, and the backbone of environmental sustainability.