Governments sometimes spend money on large works of art, such as sculptures displayed in parks, squares or other outdoor spaces. Personally, I partly agree with this suggestion due to some reasons in this essay.
One reason public art deserves some government support is that it can improve places that everyone uses. A well-designed sculpture or installation can give an ordinary square, station or park a stronger identity and make the area more memorable. Unlike art kept in a private collection, public art can be seen without an entrance fee, so its benefits are not limited to people who already visit galleries. It can also reflect local history or culture, giving residents a stronger connection with the place where they live. In this sense, the government is not simply buying decoration. It is investing in the character of a shared environment.
However, public art becomes difficult to defend when large sums are spent without a clear purpose. A sculpture may be visually impressive, but this alone does not justify using money that is urgently needed for schools, hospitals or transport. There is no guarantee that an expensive work will be valued simply because it is large or created by a famous artist. For this reason, governments should be selective. Public art should form part of wider urban development, particularly in parks, public buildings, or areas being regenerated, rather than being treated as a separate prestige project. The question should not be how much money can be spent on art, but whether the artwork genuinely makes a public space better.
In conclusion, I agree that government should spend some money on large pieces of public art because cities need more than functional infrastructure alone. However, such spending should remain proportionate and purposeful. Public art is easiest to justify when people benefit not only from the artwork itself, but also from the place it helps to create.