It has been said that government bodies should allocate financial resources for large-sized art exhibits such as sculptures displayed in outdoor areas. From my perspective, whilst this kind of art is beneficial for tourism, I largely disagree with this statement.
On the one hand, tourism can benefit from large-scale art pieces. In many public places, such as parks or quarters, they facilitate the beauty of the surroundings, thereby attracting more visitors. Moreover, grand artworks are likely to fuel tourism, which correspondingly fosters local economic development. For instance, many foreign tourists have visited the Temple of Literature in Hanoi to see big stone turtles with significant historical value, contributing to the revenue of the hotel industry. Ultimately, there are some motivations for the government to spend on large pieces of art regarding the socioeconomic field.
On the other hand, spending on large outdoor pieces of art may be considered extravagant. Materials needed for big sculptures generally cost a substantial amount of money, which can otherwise be invested in other facets of tourism or the economy. Preserving historical buildings or artefacts could be taken as prime examples. Furthermore, if sculptures are exhibited outdoors, they will be easily destroyed due to their susceptibility to natural elements such as high humidity or storms. Therefore, additional funds are required for maintenance; otherwise, they will inevitably be degraded and become public eyesores. Eventually, governmental expenditure on large outdoor artworks is seemingly inefficient.
In conclusion, large-scale art pieces can enhance tourism and boost the local economy, I firmly believe that governments should prioritize spending on more sustainable and cost-effective endeavours due to the high expenses and vulnerability of such artworks in outdoor conditions.