Public art often gets judged by how it looks, but I think its true value lies in what it does to a neighborhood's identity. A mural on a forgotten underpass can turn a walkway into a landmark, and a sculpture that gets criticized for being ugly might still become a meeting point that people reference in daily directions. I've seen a graffiti-adjacent piece in my city that locals hated at first, yet five years later it's on postcards and tourist maps. So, should we evaluate public art primarily on its aesthetic appeal, or on its social and cultural impact, even when that impact is messy and hard to measure?