Some people believe that rather than investing in arts like music and theatre, governments should invest all financial services in public services. I strongly disagree with this notion.
Firstly, art could be a means in which governments generate revenue. Art could be used to promote the culture of a country and region leading to an increase in tourism and revenue generation. For example, the Louvre in Paris which houses many famous artworks is said to attract over a hundred thousand tourists yearly. These tourist visits have been noted to increase the annual revenue generated by France.
Secondly, In order for a society to function properly, art is a necessary requirement. If there were no plays to watch or music to enjoy, members of society would develop a poor mental state leading to a decrease in productivity. To illustrate, when a majority of movies were banned in China during the Mao era, it was shown that many Chinese citizens became depressed. Consequently, they ceases to perform their societal roles adequately and this caused chaos.
Lastly, art could be a way in which governments provide public service. If properly invested in, art could also serve the public not only through entertainment but also in more practical ways. For example, literature such as poems and prose has been shown to be a great tool in teaching children English language vocabulary and grammar. Children learn better English when they read a story book.
In conclusion, I fully support the investment into art by governments because it helps to generate funds, enabled a society to function properly, and can be a great tool in providing public services.