There has been a suggestion made by some individuals regarding the necessity of governments spending more money on artworks for towns and cities. Personally, I partly disagree with this view due to some reasons that will be examined in this essay.
On the one hand, there are many benefits of having arts like paintings and statues around towns and cities, chief among which is higher tourism profit. If the governments put their money into works of art displayed in towns and cities, these areas would thereby appear to be more appealing, which potentially attracts a greater number of people coming from other places to visit. As a result, the locals’ profits are likely to increase due to the growth in tourism.
On the other hand, when government funds are allocated to art projects, it can lead to reduced budgets for more essential sectors like hospitals and schools. Consequently, communities may experience shortages in medical supplies, limited access to educational resources, understaffed facilities, and larger class sizes, impacting the overall well-being and development of residents. Moreover, the maintenance costs for public art containing regular cleansing and repair can be significant, especially those intricate works of art that require specialized treatment. Hence, municipalities might have to face ongoing financial burdens to ensure the preservation of these artworks.
In conclusion, the funding for arts such as paintings and statues in cities and towns by the governments can bring both advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless, the scarcity of funds in crucial services and the expansion in costs for arts’ conservation may be more important and should be considered more seriously, compared to the merit of raising municipalities’ profits.