There is a prevailing belief that public money should be spent on putting in more artworks such as painting and statues to enhance urban living. While I agree that art can considerably contribute to towns and cities’ culture and appearance, I believe that government spending should prioritize essential needs and public services.
On the one hand, paintings and sculptures make cities more visually appealing. Such works of art can enhance the appearance of urban areas, thereby encouraging tourists to visit the cities and contributing to local economic development. Another noteworthy rationale is that public art creates a sense of identity and cultural pride, as artworks reflect the city’s history, traditions and cultural values. As a result, these artworks can make the cities unique and memorable to visitors, further strengthening their appeal as tourism destinations.
Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with this viewpoint for several reasons. Since government funds are limited, allocating an excessive amount of money to artworks may redirect resources away from more pressing needs, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Investing in these areas can improve residents’ daily lives in the long run, as they contribute directly to residents’ well-being and living standards. Compared with these substantial benefits, such artworks are relatively unnecessary. Focusing on public art might be viewed as just a non-essential expense rather than addressing people’s basic needs.
In conclusion, although paintings and statues can beautify cities and promote cultural identity, I firmly believe that the government should allocate funds on essential public services and infrastructure, as these provide more long-term benefits for society.