It is suggested that governments should fund large-scale works of art that will be prominently featured in public places. I completely agree with this idea, for the following reasons.
First, public art displays, done in good taste, are a terrific way to elevate the look of neighborhoods and cities. Examples of how such pieces are used to great effect can be seen in the most visually stunning urban centers in the world like Chicago with the iconic Cloud Gate, New York City with the rotating installations in Hudson Yards, or Florence with its innumerable pristinely preserved sculptures scattered around the city. These projects are more needed now than ever, as they are the last bastion of humanity and creativity in a sea of austere skyscrapers and buildings that adhere to the same minimalist aesthetic.
Second, there are clear economic advantages that impressive public artworks confer on the cities where they are located. They can revitalize an old neighborhood, attract more foot traffic, and bring in new business from both tourists and locals alike. In fact, the evidence is good that in places where there is a landmark piece of art, businesses like retail and restaurants tend to flourish. While the age-old argument that public art projects and other seemingly frivolous endeavors of the government are a waste of taxpayers’ money – and sometimes an excruciatingly visible eyesore- persists, most of the time the return more than justifies the investment.
In conclusion, I am in favor of the government paying for large works of art that are displayed in public for their aesthetic as well as long-term financial contributions to cities.