In this era, the performance of the arts, especially in music and theater, is more varied and unpredictable. That matter because it is close to the government investment. I personally disagree if all the arts’ money goes to public service instead.
Firstly, the governments generally already put the majority of their money into public service. So although its money portion is not added, it still can run normally. On the other side, if the majority of arts money decreases to zero, it will greatly affect the performance of the arts. For example, all artists who hold big performances or join competitions, who usually get full support from the government, could not hold or join the event again because they have less money, and this will affect their income.
Secondly, the governments are responsible for preserving the culture. Moreover, preserving the culture is the artist’s task. So the government has to fully support the arts needs so that the artists can produce good work. A good work of art could increase the government tax income from music concerts or theatres and the artists’ income. For example, The concert or theatre could be held in a big stadium so it will have many attendees and it will affect the event income. The full support from the government also will increase the arts’ motivation to produce more innovative and competitive arts.
In conclusion, although the majority of investments go into public service, spending money on the arts is a good use of money. Investment in the arts will lead to a great performance of art and let society enjoy the art pleasantly.