Certain people hold a school of thought that governments had better invest more into installing arts constructions into towns and cities with the aim of augmenting their allure. To my perspective, I partly agree with this opinion and believe it comes about for several reason as below.
On the one hand, it goes without saying that beautiful aesthetic construction can symbolize a destination since art plays a huge role in the mental life of humans. It could serve as a symbolic feature once people name the place. For instance, the Mona Lisa painting displayed in the Louvre museum in Paris, or the Statue of Liberty in America. These are bright examples of artworks making the name for a place. By the same token, as a destination becomes popular with its attractions, tourism would be promoted, entailing the growth in economy when the number of tourists increase. Annually, these sites have millions of visitors across the globe to come and speculate, making these places become hot spots once visitors arrive.
On the other hand, putting arts constructions in places could also be a threat to the loss of cultural identity and the synchronisation in architecture. If the governments just merely have more artworks displayed in cities or towns, notwithstanding whether they are suitable for the sites or not, they will be irrelevant and soon become an outcast. What is more, paintings or public construction like statues are likely to be destroyed by people. Take the Mona Lisa painting as an example, it was once smeared with cake by a demonstrator in a climate protest. Hence, installing paintings or statues is not a long-term and sustainable way of making places more manipulating.
In conclusion, albeit artistic installation in certain places could be fruitful in terms of tourism and economic development, I believe it could also turn out to be counterproductive if the right steps are not taken.