In today’s society, investing in public service by the country government is always more prominent than spending on arts. Some people believe that funding money to develop public sectors could have a significant impact then on art, while others this disagree with this idea. In this essay, i will explain why i agree with this statement and provide examples to support my position.
On one hand, spending money in public sector is a fundamental aspect of the government, to meet basic needs of every individual. This is because, it can enhance quality of living in various ways such as, a good infrastructure, transportation and primarily quality academic pursuits. Public sector is the foundation of the country improvement. This will lead to develop the nation directly or indirectly. A nationwide survey conducted in India revealed a concerning trend before and after the investment for public development. Therefore, it is clear that improving public sector is a prime most thing than other aspects.
On the other hand, proponents of art agree is that it holds greater importance than spending on public, due to its impact on culture and tradition of individual Nations. This is because, art illustrates the importance of when various religions are well-being together without any conflicts and displays a significance culture. For example, recent studies shown that half of the country (50%) are represented by painting arts. However, while acknowledging the cultural arts and the regional traditions, it is essential to improve the needs of public by spending money in public service. This suggest that funding on the public consistently overweights the immediate benefits of art.
In conclusion, whereas it is true that art plays a crucial role, the benefits of the public service far overweight the enhancing art culture. Therefore, i strongly agree with the statement that improving public service has the greater advantages than uplifting arts.