Detail Sampel

＋Nowadays, it is easy to see that public art such as murals and sculptures attracts less attention from people of all ages. While some people think that the authorities should allocate money to these artworks, others believe that these funds should be invested in more realistic things. Although both perspectives possess merit, I support the latter view due to its practicality and immediate relevance to human well-being.

On the one hand, there are compelling arguments for allocating money on public art such as murals and sculptures. This is because they are one of the best way to preserve traditional cultures and show the pride of a community. For example, the sculptures of an eminent figure can represent a glorious history of a nation. Despite their immense value, they are gradually disappearing nowadays because lots of people lose interest in them and not spend time caring about it. That is the reason why many people think the government should fund them, it not only preserve its traditional value but also appeal more people finding it. However, these efforts just can bring a short term advantage because it might be futile if people are not really aware of responsibility to preserve them and they are also have to cope with many personal problems in their life.＋On the other hand, I believe funding more practical areas is a far more pragmatic approach for contemporary society. Nowadays, there are many serious concerns in society. Millions of people still suffer from resource scarcity, poverty and devastating epidemics daily that need substantial funding to improve.＋ As a result, spending money on it is a good way to yield immediate and sustainable socio-economic benefits.

＋In conclusion, while funding public art offers creative approach to preserve its spiritual value, prioritizing practical things is a more realistic and urgent necessity. Therefore, governments should focus on resolving immediate domestic crises to safeguard the well-being of the present generation.