Prompt: Topic Nowadays we are seeing more and more exhibitions and sculptures appearing in public. It is wrong that governments funding artist projects when there are more important things we could be doing with taxpayers' money.  To what extend do you agree or disagree with this opinion

Art is the outcome of individualism in lieu of collectivism, which implies that art can only be appreciated by certain groups of people. Therefore, there are accusations against governments' attempt to support art projects financially when the money can be spent in other public services. In my opinion, it is beneficial to augment spending for public art projects. Ċ First of all, successful public art projects can stimulate tourism industry substantially. Datong, which is a common city in China, has just been crowned as the "capital of sculpture", as the implementation of city renascence project-reconstruction of ancient sculptures, maintenance of historical temples, and exhibitions of contemporary arts. Surprisingly, not only can citizens in Datong enjoy a more artistic environment, but also the thriving of tourism industry has created a chain effect to boosting other infrastructures, such as transportation. Therefore, public art project is an integrated part of urban development which should not be isolated. Ċ Secondly, public art projects are educational and inspirational because they can enhance self-identification as a good citizen. There are many memorial statues which are designed and build to commemorate significant historical events or to pay tribute to individuals who has rendered meaningful contributions to the society. These may not be aesthetic beauty behind them, but they are beacons to illuminate histories that should not be forgotten and to encourage the younger generation to carry on their ancestors' legacy. Ċ In conclusion, governments should be supportive to the development of art projects not only because they can boost tourism industry, but also to educate citizens