There are different opinions regarding where the government should allocate funding. Some people argue that governments should provide public art , while others believe that it should be financed from other sources. This essay will discuss both perspectives and explain why I agree more with one side .
On the one hand, supporters of funding public art claim that it attracts more viewers from other countries and this idea contributes to the development of tourism in our area. This is because government can demonstrate the beautiful sightseeing and adorable nature by inviting foreign people and it is leads to considerable budget. For example, a well-known Louvre museum in France draws a large audience and brings more benefits ,such as,money , fame and develop tourism of their country.
On the other hand, those who believe that governments should be financed for other sources , such as for hospitals , school, infrastructure argue that it will be improve their country and it has many advantageous for population. This is mainly due to governments should focus on other resources by improving them for higher standard of living in there. For example, If governments provide hospitals with medical resources, such as, drugs, new technologies and materials, people will be treated better by consuming this resources. In addition, governments can provide basic funding while private companies sponsor specific projects. For instance, In London , private companies finance to art projects , although governments are building a large amount of schools and universities which students tends to study better and invent new technologies .
In conclusion, both sides have valid arguments . However , I personally believe that governments and private companies must unite for the benefit of people’s future.Furthermore, governments should take more responsibility and fund to other resources as well as private companies should sponsor for art projects.