# data[].attributes.body
Nowadays, government funding allocation has pique many people's interest. A group of people subscribe to the view that the authorities ought to prioritize public service rather than arts. In this essay, I will provide provocative and detailed insights into both views and present my support for the former.
To commence with, arts exert an enormous bearing on individual's soul. It is the entertainment for citizens, which can serves as stress, anxiety and depression allevation. However, when some countries are still suffering economic difficulties, injecting money in the art section is not idealistic. Therefore, spending money in art in such context are unwise.
On the other hand, investing money in public service would improve the overall life quality of people. First and foremost, government funding could be used to enhance healthcare services. With such load of money, cures and medication for diseases might be researched and put into use to reduce the rate of transmission of infectious diseases, both common and rare disease. Furthermore, having more federal budget on education will enable the opens of schools in secluded areas. This act as a precursor to battle illiteracy, especially for the underpriviledges. All in all, spending more money on publice services
In conclusion, I contend that publice service take precedence over artistic subjects, thus, money should be spend more on the former section.

# data[].attributes.body
The question of whether government spending on the arts is wasteful has always piqued people's interest. Some argue that the authority's funding should be allocated to public services instead, and vice versa. For the following reasons, I completely disagree with the preceding statement.
On the one hand, a school of thought that believes investing money is pointless because it benefits society in no way. However, this viewpoint is fundamentally wrong, because the arts have the potential to both alleviate mental illness and benefit one's country monetarily. For starters, many individuals nowadays use arts such as music or painting to find serenity, therefore less art could lead to an increase in depression cases across the country. Furthermore, because many forms of art are tied to one's nation's culture and history, investing more money in this area will significantly benefit the country's finances by drawing foreign visitors. Clearly, studies have proven that countries that invest more in art have a better financial situation. Overall, it would be a no-brainer to accuse art of being detrimental.
On the other hand, investing in the arts would encourage viewers to extend their horizons. By allowing viewers to view the work in a variety of ways and from various perspectives, they will be able to strengthen their creativity and problem-solving skills, for example, by looking at an issue from many perspectives. Furthermore, many artists will be able to expand and earn as a result of the government's budget. Pupils that are talented in art may be encouraged to follow their route and pursue their passion rather than pursuing a vocation that isn't in their favor, especially nowadays, when high academically performing students are acknowledged more.
In conclusion, for the reasons listed below, art should not just be ignored but also heavily invested in if it is to thrive.

# data[].attributes.body
Some people adopt the view that the public purse ought to be diverted to public service instead of the aesthetic aspect. From my point of view, this idea is nonsensical since art still exerts a tremendous outcome in the modern-day era.

To commence with, some supporters of this idea opine that art is not as crucial as public service since it yields no benefits to an individual like public services. Nonetheless, this belief is such a mindless flaw. It is worth noting that allocating money to develop artistic facet is imperative since it will sharpen the citizen's mental well-being. There is no denying that art empowers an individual to work creatively and not follow the orthodox way. This can be observed in the fact workers who tend to listen to music or are inclined to draw an artistic picture are demonstrated to work more imaginatively than those who do not. Hence, it is imprudent to underrate the value of art and not plug back money into this area.

Additionally, the allocation of government coffers for art can preserve the history of that nation since aesthetic areas are often synonymous with history. Thus, without the development of this aspect, the music, and art of one nation will vanish which will then adversely affect the history of that country. Unquestionably, government funding should be allocated to art so that history can be preserved and future generations, as well as tourists from other countries, can gain insight into this valuable facet.

With all of the considered reasons, i am wholeheartedly embrace that art is still paramount to modern-day society and thus it should be injected more funding to develop.

# data[].attributes.body
The debate whether government's expenditure on arts is wasteful has always been a topic of interest. Some people think that the authority should allocate their budget towards public services instead and vice versa. I wholeheartedly disagree with the aforementioned statement for the following reasons.

On the one hand, a school of thought that investing money is useless due to the fact it is not beneficial at all for the society. However, this thinking is fundamentally flawed because arts could deduce mental illness as well as profit one's country financially. Firstly, many people nowadays use arts such as music or painting to afford peace, therefore less art could trigger more depression cases nation-wide. Moreover, many means of art are linked with one's nation's culture and history, so putting more money into this subject will improve the country's finances substantially by attracting foreign visitors. Evidently, researches have shown countries which invest more in art results in higher financial status. All in all, it would be such a no-brainer to accuse art of being unbeneficial for a nation.

On the other hand, investment in the artistic field would help broaden the minds of the viewers. By letting the watchers view the art in different ways and with different opinions, they will be able to sharpen their creativity and enhance the problem solving skills, for example looking at an issue at different aspects. In addition, with the government's budget, many artists in general will be able to grow and gain profit. Especially nowadays, when highly academically performing students are praised more, students who are good at art could be encouraged to follow their path and pursue their dream rather than following a career which isn't in their favor

In conclusion, given the following reasons, art shouldn't only be left aside and should also be heavily invested in in order for it to prosper.

# data[].attributes.body
Some people think the government should spend more money on public services rather than waste money on arts (i.e. music and painting). To what extent do you agree or disagree?

# data[].attributes.body
Since time immemorial, arts have exerted a tremendous outcome on human beings. Nonetheless, a school of thought holds that authority ought to allocate more budget to public services instead of this artistic area. As an antagonist of this idea, I opine that arts are still imperative to mankind for a multitude of reasons.

Granted, some people adopt the view that public investment should not be utilized for arts since this facet will yield no benefits to society. Instead, such allocation should be used for developing healthcare and educational systems so as to create a well-rounded and prolific workforce for a nation. However, from my perspective, this is such a short-signed flaw. It is such a no-brainer to claim that art can be conducive to the development of a nation since it is synonymous with the culture and history of this country. Injecting money to improve this facet will make this nation become unique from other nations and attract an inexorable number of foreign tourists. This can be observed in the truisms that when the art museums in numerous nations can attract myriad visitors because of their features when such locations are innovated. Hence, it is unequivocal that injecting money into art is imperative.

Additionally, the artistic facet is conducive to not only a nation but also an individual. There is no denying that art enables people to broaden their minds and sharpen their creativity. Hence, it empowers people to tackle some severe problems in their life more creatively. What is more, it is inevitable that art can be advantageous for people as helps them to ease stress. This can be observed in the truism that people who are immensely attributed with their intense working schedule are often listening to music. Such songs can help them to alleviate their stress and makes them prolific again before working.  Thus, it is undeniable that art is conducive to an individual.

All in all, the government ought to inject money into art in light of the fact that it enhances a country in tourist facet and empowers individual to alleviate his or her pressure and make a person productive.

# data[].attributes.body
A segment of society states that public services should be prioritized rather than squander government budget on arts. As art can exert a positive bearing on a country in many facets, I believe it is still worthwhile to invest in this sector.
On the one hand, it is understandable why a sum of people downplays the necessity of artistic field. The key rationale is that our society has numerous pressing issues which require immediate actions such as education, industry,...However, this notion is flawed since the living standard of a country is not only depicted through material possession but also their mental well-being. In light of this, by investing more money in these art forms, people can nurture their soul ,have a better mind. Since then, the mentioned problems could be ameliorated in certain extent. For this reason, it is imprudent to overlook the unshaken importance of art.
On the other hand, art plays an extricable role in the comprehensive development of a country. First and foremost, it can render positive implications for youngsters in school ages. Provided that art is fully adopted in curriculum, students could entertain after core subject lessons resulting in the improvement in academic performance. With these achievements in school, they would be prone to landing a prosperous occupation in the adulthood and living  the fullest life. The argument is also reinforced by the fact that artworks can preserve national identity. By injecting more money into exhibition in museums, for instance, it can attract a massive influx of tourists. As a consequence, the national image would be improved and the citizen's chauvinism is also raised which evidently is conducive to this country.
All things considered, giving a precedence to artistic activities render a myriad of positive implications in both individual and societal scale.