The New Sculpture In Chicago
I am writing a letter to the city council to ensure that my voice is heard regarding the the new sculpture being placed in our city. With the implementation of the new sculpture, we, as a city are digging ourselves into an economic hole. One example of this is the Picasso sculpture in Chicago. With all that money spent very few civilians were in favor of the painting. Given the size of the population of our city in comparison to that of Chicago, even the slightest number of people in favor this sculpture in our city will not compensate for the money spent. Do we as a community, really want to spend thousands of dollars on a piece of art that may or may not be beneficial to our community? The answer would be no, we do not want that, so, we should
…show more content…
“Today public art is as varied as the communities in which it is situated”(The History of Public Art). This shows that once upon a time art was a factor in bring people together but, in the modern age art is diverse as the places it inhabits. Therefore, the once purpose-filled art does not serve a purpose anymore and does not to be in our city either. Others may say that government supplies the money so that the people can enjoy art. Although that may be true, the government spends too much money on public art, “cutting government funding for public art frees up tax dollars for indispensable government necessities that protect the safety and well-being of citizens, such as road building and maintenance, healthcare, housing and education” (Art for Art’s Sake). Simply stated, the government should not be obligated to fund for public art: public art can survive with just private funding.
The need for a sculpture in our city is an irrational idea. The costs outweigh the negligible benefits and, fail to provide any guarantee if the public will be in favor of the sculpture or not. Since it is a very expensive decision to be made, we do not want to any risks. If the people did in fact want some kind of public art to harbor in our city, it would not be long before they privately funded art. In conclusion, the city council should not pay to build a sculpture due to the negligible benefits the idea might
“Today public art is as varied as the communities in which it is situated”(The History of Public Art). This shows that once upon a time art was a factor in bring people together but, in the modern age art is diverse as the places it inhabits. Therefore, the once purpose-filled art does not serve a purpose anymore and does not to be in our city either. Others may say that government supplies the money so that the people can enjoy art. Although that may be true, the government spends too much money on public art, “cutting government funding for public art frees up tax dollars for indispensable government necessities that protect the safety and well-being of citizens, such as road building and maintenance, healthcare, housing and education” (Art for Art’s Sake). Simply stated, the government should not be obligated to fund for public art: public art can survive with just private funding.
The need for a sculpture in our city is an irrational idea. The costs outweigh the negligible benefits and, fail to provide any guarantee if the public will be in favor of the sculpture or not. Since it is a very expensive decision to be made, we do not want to any risks. If the people did in fact want some kind of public art to harbor in our city, it would not be long before they privately funded art. In conclusion, the city council should not pay to build a sculpture due to the negligible benefits the idea might