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?
While urban areas are already appealing places to reside, I largely agree that investing in public artworks such as murals and sculptures is a worthwhile use of government funds to improve liveability, though this should be balanced with spending on essential urban services.
On the one hand, public art delivers clear benefits for city life. Firstly, it enhances the aesthetic appeal of urban spaces, turning monotonous concrete streets, underpasses and public squares into visually engaging areas that lift public mood. For example, the street art murals in Melbourne’s laneways have transformed once-neglected alleys into vibrant community spaces that both residents enjoy daily and tourists visit. Secondly, public art can strengthen local cultural identity: statues commemorating local historical figures or community murals created with local residents help foster a sense of belonging and connection to place, which makes a city feel more like a home rather than just a collection of buildings.
That said, governments must prioritise basic services before allocating large budgets to art. Spending on healthcare, affordable housing, public transport and waste management is the foundation of a liveable city; no amount of statues will make a city good to live in if residents lack access to these necessities. For instance, a city with unreliable public transit or insufficient public healthcare would see far greater liveability improvements from funding those services first, rather than installing artworks.
In conclusion, public art is a valuable investment that can make cities more attractive and cohesive, so governments should allocate funds to it — but only after core public needs are met.