投资艺术是必要的；钱应该花在公共服务和设施上；
讨论两种观点，给出自己的观点
观点：
艺术品具有赏心悦目或安慰人心的力量，投资艺术带来人们更多的审美享受。

钱应该投在公共服务上，因为这些基础设施是人们日常生活的基础，公共服务提高人民对社会和国家的满意程度和归属感。

艺术只有少部分人能欣赏，且对美的定义容易引起争论。

公共服务使大多数人获益。

支持主要投资公共设施，小范围投资大众接受度高的艺术。

People have different arguments about investigations of the arts, especially when a country faces a budget problem. I think that governments should give priority to the construction of infrastructures and facilities and invest the arts when budgets are sufficient.
People have different views about government funding for the arts, especially when a country struggles with budget deficits. I reckon that we should give priority to essential services and infrastructures and then fund the arts when governments have a budget surplus.
Many people support to invest in the arts because it can enable our cities more attractive. Some forms of arts, such as sculptures, paintings, and carving, make our public areas like libraries, subway stations, and public toilets even more scanning. If the art industry thrives well, architecture in cities will vary in many styles and the public can enjoy better city life. Furthermore, exposure to arts enables us to reduce stress and brighten our mood.
Many people support the public funds for the arts, which can make our cities more visually attractive. It is true that artworks, including sculptures, paintings and states can decorate public facilities such as libraries, metro stations, or even toilets, and increase the artistic appeal of these places. If the art industry prospers, cities have a mix of different architectural styles and we are more likely to enjoy urban life. Exposure to artworks can reduce our pressure and put us in a good mood.
Although arts are significant, some others argue that governments should spend money on public services rather than arts because ordinary people are more interested in public facilities, such as electricity and water supply, schools, libraries, and transports. For example, a clean environment and water can help improve people’s health and reduce illness, while schools and libraries can transform knowledge and increase people’s job skills. By contrast, most forms of arts are expensive to ordinary people without practical benefits.
Although the funding for the arts is important, many people would argue that public facilities deserve more of public money. Ordinary people are more interested in public facilities (such as water and electricity supply networks, schools, libraries and roads), which have a direct impact on their living conditions. For example, good sanitation and clear water can improve people’s health and reduce diseases, while schools and libraries can disseminate knowledge and improve young people’s job prospects. In contrast, sculptures, paintings and operas are luxury items to most people and are not likely to bring tangible benefits to them.
In my opinion, public facilities prompt economic development, which also enables governments to have more money to invest in the arts. For instance, the investment of the public transport system can make commuters less time to go work and improve productivity. Once our society has these facilities, cities can attract investments, become richer, and improve citizens living conditions.
In my view, improvements in facilities can promote economy development so that the government can have enough money to invest in arts. For example, the investment in the transport system can improve the productivity of working people by making daily commuting easier, while the public spending on high-speed railway systems and airports can ensure that cargo can be delivered faster. Cities can attract and become wealthy, so people’s living standards can also be improved.
In conclusion, as though the arts make our cities more beautiful, governments should focus on the development of public facilities.
To sum up, I believe that the government should focus on services and facilities vital to the wellbing of the general public, even though artistic projects have made our cities spectacular.。