Some people believe that governments should stop spending money on arts. Instead, they should use this money to improve vital services such as schools and hospital. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

In recent years, to where the authority should give financial support has remained a subject of controversy. Many people claim that instead of spending on the arts, governments have more reasonable targets to invest. Personally, I partially agree with this notion for some reasons.

People should first regconize that we are living in the 21st century which has been marked by the appearance of economic crisis. Global economy has been affected seriously and millions of people have become unemployed and homeless. As a result, munificent grants need distributing to solve this urgent problem to ensure the stable development of the whole society. If authorities had stopped helping unprivileged people by improving general living standards, bulding up new hospitals, revolutionizing education system, the situation would have been considerably worse. A typically good example is that in 2009, Vietnamese government invested massively into industry and agriculture to create numerous jobs for the unpaid to settle down.

However, it is indisputable that arts is of particular significance. Apparently, it has variously appeared in human's life throughout history. Songs, novels, stories, plays, dances fulfil diverse demands of human beings, bringing join and happiness to our daily lives. Consequently, arts also need money to catch up with universal development. In addition to this, a total elimination in financial support will definitely put arts in jeopardy and directly influence artists' lives.

All in all, governmental grants are pivotal to any aspect of a society, especially in a current global hardship. Therefore, in my opinion, a cut on budget of arts support would be more efficient to balance the two sides.