Governments give a lot of support to artists, even though some people think it is a waste of money that could have been used elsewhere. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some would argue that authorities spend too much money on artists' support,

while

others believe that those funds are better spent

elsewhere

. Both points of view make sense, but I agree with the latter one because art is not the only thing to be focused on. On the one hand, art undeniably should be funded and supported by the government.

Consequently

, more and more artists would be able to get a stage and the opportunity to express themselves. New exhibitions would be organized and jobs created, leading to the establishment of extra professional relationships.

In addition

to that, involvement from the younger generation would

also

increase.

For instance

, over the

last

decade, mostly big Ukrainian cities have taken part in international events dedicated to modern art.

Nevertheless

, I think that

such

actions should have been provided in smaller towns as well, helping outlying communities to be closer to

this

kind of activity.

On the other hand

, the investments that have been put into arts could have been spent on something else, like education. In

this

sector, plenty of areas could be found where additional government attention is required.

For example

, in small villages in Ukraine, not many school subjects remain

due to

curriculum reductions enforced by authority rules.

Thus

, locals have fewer programs, which results in a decrease in the average level of children's intelligence.

However

, I do believe that spendings have to be balanced out and used precisely, focusing on providing additional study facilities and opportunities. In conclusion, the necessity of societal cultural development is hard to underestimate,

although

other directions of investments like education should not be forgotten as well.