Towns and cities are attractive places. Some people suggest that the government should spend money putting in more works of art like paintings and statues to make them better to live in. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, many

art

decorations

such

as paintings and statues have been placed in the communities to make cities more attractive. While some people think more money should be allocated in

such

an action, I cannot fully accept that. On the one hand, the investment in putting more artworks could highly improve the quality of the environment of the city.

Instead

of bland streets with infrastructures, residents may feel more pleased living in the community surrounding by beautiful drawings and elegant statues.

For instance

, their leisure time could be spent in the public zone with

art

, which

also

fosters their sense of beauty.

Thus

, people would be benefited to have more works of

art

in their towns.

On the other hand

, decorating the city can hardly be the priority demands of citizens. Rather than accompany with useless status with a high cost for maintenance from taxation, people are more likely to experience improvements in basic but critical needs in daily life

such

as roads renew and school establishment. Take Taipei as a good example,

g

Add an article

the

show examples

overnment has found that citizens are no longer interested in the artworks in the city but focusing on the issues like traffic congestion which directly influences them.

Thus

, the money should spend

firstly

on those which citizens care about the most in the

first

place. In conclusion, I believe the government should just build a moderate number of works of

art

but emphasis the fundamental problems.