Nowadays, an increasing number of people are concerned about the well-known fact that the governments should invest more on putting artistic works as paintings or statues into towns and cities. Others think that there are still drawbacks in this policy. While I accept that the spend more money on putting works of art would be a great idea to attract the domestic and foreign tourists, I would argue that the drawbacks of this policy should not be underestimated.
On the one hand, there are two primary reasons why the governs should make more investment on placing public structures in different areas. Initially, artistic works will make a huge contribution and positive impact to the attraction for a city and its development. For instance, by having more works of art, the government will create a new and creative environment, which increase foot traffic and enhance visual appeal. Additionally, public structures are also a good choice to express and promote cultural identity. For example, works of art bring a visually enjoyment for citizens, which is also a civic pride. In this case, the government can make several artistic heritages for the citizen, which is cultural enrichment aesthetic enhancement.
On the other hand, the importance of saving art funding for other purposes should not be underestimated. Firstly, putting artistic works on public place might create a deterioration for artworks. For example, the exposure to harsh weather elements is a popular form of damage to the artworks, which reducing their aesthetic appeal and exacerbate the number of diseases on the society. Furthermore, it can be the presence of more pressing issues, by focusing on art installations a luxury expenditure can address the immediate needs.
Although I acknowledged that the governments should invest more on putting artistic works can brings several benefits, I would argued that the drawbacks of this policy should not be underestimated. A balance should be