Numerous people propose that government funds should be integrated into art pieces like paintings and statues to enhance the beautification of urban societies. I firmly disagree with this assertion. I will put forth my views in this essay to support my argument.
Firstly, the attractiveness of urban areas is not solely dependent on visual improvements. The well being of urban dwellers is dependent on more significant factors beyond just the glorious appearance of the city. Prioritising fundamental needs such as access to filtered water, nutritious food, green spaces, and shelters over the aesthetic upgrades of public places is significant for the development of both a healthy and well-functioning society. For instance, in many urban areas, inadequate public transportation, traffic jams, poorly maintained roads, and environmental pollution crucially affect the lives of those living in the cities. Additionally, the allocation of funds in such practical solutions can alleviate traffic problems, lessen pollution, and ultimately ameliorate the overall well-being of the people in a much more tangible way than art installations.
Secondly, investing in education and healthcare not only benefits individuals but also contributes to the development of a society. Prioritising funding in these sectors can lead to a more educated community. The cautious preservation of these artworks and sculptures against weather conditions is a costly struggle. Additionally, allotting money to art initiatives may lead to the neglect of areas that require immediate attention and resources. Nevertheless, the presence of artistic pieces can undoubtedly add aesthetic value to the city; however, urban issues should take precedence over everything.
To conclude, while the embellishments of art can add to a city’s charm, I robustly believe that government funds should prioritise primary necessities.