It is argued that government should allocate a budget to artistic activities, such as creating paintings and statues, to enhance the quality of life in cities. In my opinion, while art can play a crucial role in improving urban environments, there are other more pressing priorities that devote excessive attention.
​To begin with, incorporating more art in public spaces can make cities more visually appealing and culturally rich. Public art often reflects the identity and history of communities, fostering connection among residents. Murals and sculptures can transform dull areas into vibrant ones, attracting tourists and encouraging economic growth. Besides, art can serve as a tool for relaxation and inspiration, providing a sense of calmness. For instance, while visiting the Netherlands, I saw numerous public art installations, such as sculptures of birds along the road that, when viewed from a moving car, appeared to be flying alongside you. This was one of about ten impressive pieces I encountered there, and it left such a strong impression that I considered visiting more cities in the Netherlands just to explore their public art.
​On the contrary, governments should carefully consider other essential aspects. For example, investments in affordable housing, healthcare, and public transportation have a direct impact on the well-being of citizens. Addressing issues like homelessness, inadequate infrastructure, and poor public services should be considered before aesthetic enhancements. While art adds value, it may not directly address the daily struggles faced by many citizens.
In conclusion, while allocating funds for public art can make cities more beautiful and culturally significant, governments should prioritize essential services and infrastructure improvements to ensure a higher overall quality of life for their citizens.