Some hold the belief that the government should allocate expenditures for works of art such as paintings or statues to make towns and cities more alluring. Although spending money on art can enhance the country’s tourism, putting the money towards public infrastructure is more beneficial.
To begin with, the government investing in art to make places more attractive could theoretically improve the nation’s tourism. This is because tourists are usually hooked on beautiful destinations, which means that the government could lure tourists using many gorgeous works of art. For example, a statue of a historical figure erected in a rural area could allure more people to come to those places and gaze at it, essentially creating a tourist attraction.
However, there are alternative investments the government can make rather than spending money for artistic purposes. This is due to paintings, statues or any other form of art often not having a useful function other than to be eye candy. This cosmeticism means that the money spent on those cosmetics could have solved other problems that many people are dealing with. Considering this fact, instead of wasting money on art, the government should use it on improving public infrastructure to improve the quality of life of citizens. For example, investing in public transport like buses, trains or subways would not only allow more individuals without a private vehicle to travel, but also cut down on carbon emissions, therefore making the air cleaner.
In conclusion, I maintain that the government should use the budget on refining the country’s infrastructure to enhance people’s quality of life as it is more advantageous than using it for works of art.