Some people think that public art should be funded by governments, while others believe that it should be funded by other sources. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

There is no doubt that public art needs funding. People have different views about who should support it. While the support of the government is important, I agree with those who believe that other sources of funding should be considered. Some people insist that governments have the duty to financially support public art. Governments collect taxes from the public and funding public art is a good way for them to pay back. Public art can improve the living environment and its aesthetics. Governments can give citizens instant access to works of art by placing sculptures and paintings in public squares. Moreover, unlike private companies, governments are more likely to invest in the public art which needs regular repairs and maintenance, because it is a long-term investment without obvious financial returns. Therefore, funds from governments are necessary. Even so, in my opinion, governments have other areas to focus on. For example, providing education and healthcare is more important than supporting arts and artists. Therefore, instead of spending millions for promoting arts, the government should encourage its citizens and other organizations to promote arts. For example, when companies promote public art, they also get to advertise their brand and enhance its value. People can also use public art to support the causes they believe in. Governments can encourage public funding of arts by giving them some tax rebates. To conclude, public art certainly needs funding because it has a positive influence in many aspects of life. In my opinion, since governments already have heavy financial burdens on their shoulders, there is no justification for them to spend huge amounts of money to promote arts. Instead, they should encourage private organizations and individuals to invest in public arts.