Some people think that the government is wasting money on the arts and this money could be better spent elsewhere.To what extent do you agree or disagree.

When development and construction occur in an

area

or city, the government usually installs several art pieces,

such

as sculptures, monuments, etc. in that

area

. Some

people

have an argument that art is part of society and it will increase the aesthetic side of the city. But, not all

people

agree with that statement. Let us discuss the positive and negative sides of

this

phenomenon.

Firstly

, the arts itself can be a marker of a region. In regional development theory, experts agree that an

area

needs a

landmark

to be well known by its population and

also

the societies from outside of

this

area

. To make a great

landmark

, the government needs to collaborate with great artists and spends a lot of money to implement that idea. But,

on the other hand

, some governments don't plan and execute the great

landmark

for their city or region.

Landmark

itself must have strong emotional ties with its surrounding residences. Landmarks must be representative of the society's identity, especially culture. Many governments just make a picturesque memorial just to increase the number of visitors, but they forget to make a marker that connected with its

people

and is well known to the whole world.

To conclude

this

discussion, I tend to disagree with the budget allocation for an art installation in an

area

, especially if it's not planned and executed well and

also

doesn't represent its community. Many aspects of development are more important than just arts,

such

as education, accessibility to adequate food and sanitation, healthcare, public transport, etc.

Furthermore

, many politicians use landmarks as just their leadership legacy and become useless for the rest of the

people

in that space.