Do you agree or disagree with the following statement it is important for the government to spend money on things that are beautiful not just on things that are practical

To my mind, the balance should be reached it those things. Practical commodities can also be good-looking, which is beneficial for everyone. At first glance, it's hard to see hidden opportunities in things, which are good in both aspects. They can have an impact both on the economy of the country, and on it's residents. First and foremost, original and creative art objects tend to attract tourists. We have a plenty examples of them, like some celebrated monuments as The Statue of Liberty in New-York, for instance. It merely has some practical use, but vast amounts of travelers visit it every year. Thereby, as I am aknowledged of, tourists bring their currency with them and thus stimulate economic growth. Then, the country is capable of becoming attractive for investors and traders, which will impove economy even more. Secondly, our life is hard and exhausting. Sometimes, people just need to take a break and enjoy simple things. Extraordinary and good-looking art objects can become a topic for a discussion, or cheer somebody up by casting their memory back to moments, associated with a particular piece of art. They can even help to create new highlights! People can take photos with them, therefore creating a memorable moment and sharing the location of an exhibition with others. Last but not least, if government allowed artists to create, it could become an increadible opportunity for them to become famous and share their works with others. As a conclusion, i agree that practical things should have the leading role, because they are comfortable and beneficial for both parties. However, nothing impedes to make those simple and tedious dwellings and parks more eye-catching and attractive for different groups of people.