It is true that the government’s funds are used for showing pieces of art in public. While I would argue that it serves as a means to create a relaxed atmosphere for citizens when they are outside to some extent, I acknowledge that the authority figures may use this cost to address alternative concerns in modern society.
Admittedly, it is more beneficial to show the sculptures in popular venues in order to meet the modern living standard. Art plays a vital role in life and is a part of an essential person’s life. If a city combines various works of art, it will bring creative inspiration to its citizens. As a result, these not only create impressive scenery but also enhance mental health. Moreover, this builds up the character of urban areas for local inhabitants and attracts tourists from around the world to visit to promote vibrant city life as well as boost economic growth.
However, public art has less value than investment in aspects of society. A vast majority of citizens who have a heavy schedule and are too engaged to notice public art. Therefore, this art means nothing to most others while taking up a lot of the city’s budget. In a recent survey, most individuals claimed that while taking part in traffic, they did not notice sculptures on the road, as they must focus on driving to restrict traffic accidents. If the government used these funds for infrastructure, health, and education, it would increase the quality of life for its inhabitants.
In conclusion, I accept that there are a couple of benefits when investing in showing works of art outdoors; however, I believe that it brings fewer advantages than paying a lot of money for this.