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

Opinions are divided on whether a larger amount of money should be spent on arts such as paintings or statues in urban areas to create a better space for citizens or not. Although doing so offers certain benefits, I believe that the financial support from the public should be allocated to other urgent purposes.

On the one hand, there are several advantages of putting more works of art in public places. One of them is that paintings make space more beautiful so people are likely to go there to relax. These days, many young people tend to go to places which display paintings or sculptures to take photos. Another is that statues of famous people in history should be put in public spaces like parks. It is a good way to educate children about history. For example, in many parks in Vietnam, the statues of those who have merit in liberating the country are put to appreciate their sacrifice.

On the other hand, the government budget is a limited resource, so it should be prioritized for other purposes such as education or healthcare. In my country Vietnam, especially in rural areas, there are still many children with lack of education, so financial packing should be spent on supporting poor students with scholar packages instead of focusing too much on art. In addition, there are more and more dangerous diseases, as a result many hospitals have to suffer from overload of patients, so it is necessary to take action to tackle this problem. Therefore, the government should dedicate more money to the nation’s healthcare system by improving the facilities in hospitals.

In conclusion, although some people contend that putting more paintings and statues brings benefits in terms of art and history, I am in favor of the opinion that education and healthcare should be prioritized.