How governments should allocate their budget remains a debatable topic. Some claim that governments should spend more money on art while others think governments need to pay more attention to athletics. I prefer that governments give more financial support to art considering its widespread influence on people’s daily life.

Art involves more people. Art can be presented in various forms, including, but not limited to, paintings, dramas, music and dance. This diversity indicates that art can attract people of different ages, genders, and backgrounds. With more money invested in art, governments are creating a more diverse, harmonious society. For example, governments can help to maintain museums or to make them free for all citizens to access. In this way, no matter rich or poor, young or old, people can readily enjoy great historical artworks. This practical approach also relates to people that governments care for them.

Art also plays an important role in other fields. Art can do far more than merely describing abstract feelings, such as aesthetics and emotions. Professionals have been exploiting art in healthcare, psychological, and technological areas. Researchers, for instance, have proved that music therapy is reliable in improving some patients’ cognitive and physical abilities. Besides, the interaction between art and digital technology is reshaping the world. That is, art is beneficial in almost all aspects of our society.

While sponsoring Olympic teams is useful in winning glories for a state, art can do even better. China earned a reputation for the Academy Award- and Golden Globe Award-winning film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which in turn interested many foreign people to know more about Chinese culture and to visit China. In other words, art brings about not only short-term benefits but also long-term advantages, as an effective way to spread a traditional culture worldwide.

In conclusion, governments should spend more money on art instead of athletics to gain multiple benefits.