In today’s society, there has been considerable debate about whether the government should fund large-scale artworks for public display in outdoor areas, such as parks and squares, or not. While I acknowledge that there are some valid reasons to support this notion, I partly disagree with this suggestion, as these financial resources should be better allocated to more vital categories like education and healthcare.
Admittedly, funding sizable works of art, especially those related to a place’s history, can enhance public knowledge of those outdoor areas and arouse a sense of identity. Arts often reflect numerous values, including cultural and historical ones. Therefore, displaying these pieces of art in public spaces without charging fees may foster public curiosity and encourage them to start exploring a place’s history through different artworks showcased. Residents living in surrounding areas, on the other hand, may also develop a sense of identity and belonging through this action, which in turn increases their connection to the place where they live. However, this line of reasoning overlooks the fact that these artworks can be misinterpreted, potentially leading to public misconceptions. As arts are created by artists themselves, they often convey artists’ personal feelings and stories that may be understood differently by members of the public. For this reason, several artworks and sculptures are likely to be misconceived, which possibly offends a group of people that find the messages inappropriate. As a result, there is no guarantee that governments may yield tangible results from this action, which makes allocating money to solve pressing issues related to education and healthcare more compelling.
In many countries, a number of problems related to education and healthcare remain unsolved. Regarding education, some marginalized groups are still unable to receive proper education due to prohibitive costs, resulting in high illiteracy rates and the possibility of resorting to crimes as their livelihoods. Were governmental funds to be spent on opening free classes with qualified teachers and providing scholarships, these issues could be alleviated, thereby helping impoverished children gain access to educational training. Apart from education, healthcare also serves as a sector that is worth investing in. For example, funds can be allocated to enhancing the quality of the healthcare system, training medical teams and reducing the cost of healthcare. Only when governments channel their resources effectively can they fully address these remaining issues and enhance society’s well-being consequently. Compared to investing in artworks, this suggestion is more realistic, given that the community is able to receive tangible benefits from governmental funds.
In conclusion, despite acknowledging that funding artworks for public display can enhance public knowledge of certain areas and increase a sense of identity, I personally believe that channeling these resources into improving education and healthcare is a more realistic way of serving the community. By investing in these pressing sectors, governments can bring more educational opportunities to impoverished children and ensure the public well-being.