Do you agree or disagree?

“The government should spend more money on art

performances than on public recreational facilities such as public swimming pool,
parks, and playgrounds.”

First, building places for art performances is more financially advantageous.

While it produces economic profits to construct public recreational facilities and
get
entrance fees, building places for art performances creates more financial benefit
based on admission fees. To take a hypothetical case for example, a popular
symphony
orchestra rents a concert hall and decides to hold a performance. Then, a lot of
people who want to enjoy the performance will come and buy tickets. After the
performance,
the symphony orchestra will have to pay the rent to the local government. On the
other hand, when citizens use public recreational facilities like parks, normally
they do not
pay or they pay just a couple of dollars for entrance, which means the construction
of public recreational facilities is less lucrative than that of performance venues
for art
activities.
Second reason is that usually artists are very poor. The prices of art materials
or instruments are very expensive, and their professional profit is not enough to
buy the
materials or instruments. For this reason, the government has to help artists and
singers to exhibit their works in the gallery and hold a music concert so that they
can earn
moremoney. However, building recreational facilities is not as pressing as
supporting their living. For example, my cousin who is a painter always has little
money. He had to
have part-time jobs to continue painting. Also, even though he created a lot of
paintings, he cannot exhibit his paintings in the gallery, because holding an
exhibition costs
a lot of money, and there are a few galleries, so I think the government has to
financially support artists and build more exhibition venues and concert halls that
the
government runs.