Issue85 第一次写issue完全找不着北，请指教

chengnicoleUID: 2216897

TOPIC: ISSUE85 - "Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts."
WORDS: 553          TIME: 1:12:19          DATE: 2006-7-1

Will government funding of the arts threaten the integrity of the arts?  I basically agree with the speaker's opinion. Though more funding from government can provide financial support to the arts development, the integrity of the arts will be threatened by the funding allocation process more or less.

Admittedly, if the government can provide funding to nurture the arts, the benefited artists can concentrate on composing their works without distracting by worry about that lack of money might lead to the abortion of great creative. In fact, almost every government administration invest in the arts in our history. The most obvious examples are the magnificent churches in Europe and other western countries. Many of the splendid artistic architectures were subsidized by the government at the building ages. The artists of that times created the fabulous stained-glasses with figures & stories from the Bible, the paintings of Holy gods and royal families, and the carvings, the sculptures, even the normal but also incredible beautiful candle holders, and countless refined artistic pieces with the government funding. Without the utmost support on the arts, we probably would not have our civilization and culture today. Government funding of the arts do stimulate the development of the arts.

However, there are two important arguments about the funding of the arts that should be taken into consideration. In the first place, by funding the arts, government might interfere the arts in certain degree. We need to recognize the reality that the funding government can allocate on subsidizing to arts is finite. Not every artist or institution can be benefit from the government funding. Who will make the decision on what kind of arts or which artist or institution is entitled for higher priority while the others have less? The personal appetites and even interests would become vital factors in decision making. Imagine if the arts with government funding are selected by the same administrator, there might not be various styles and any out-of-box masterpieces. Those non-mainstream arts that the funding officers dislike might not be able to survive when compete with the mainstream arts.

In the second place, is the government funding the only necessary resource for the arts funding? Obviously not. Date back to the Renaissance Italy, many famous artists were subsidized by rich entrepreneurs. Nowadays, many galleries and museums are named by rich people's names, such as Carnage, Rockefeller, and so on. On the patronage list of every big art center, people can always find quite a few names who donated money to support the arts. To some extent, the modern arts are supported by enormous personal findings. Different patroness with different tastes and preferences in arts, so that the arts prosperous in a colorful way. And the artists do not need to sacrifice their personal styles and creative and pander to the patroness since every artist now has the equal chance to seek for the right funding person who appreciates his/her style of arts.

In sum, to preserve the integrity of arts, it is important to avoid unnecessary interfere from bureaucracy. Individual patronage can provide less interfere and become a vital support to modern arts. I concede the positive impact government funding did on the arts development, but it is a objective stubborn fact that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

徐牛牛UID: 2178357

Will government funding of the arts threaten the integrity of the arts?  I basically agree with the speaker's opinion. Though more funding from government can provide financial support to the arts development, the integrity of the arts will be threatened by the funding allocation process more or less. 第一段很流畅的说

Admittedly, if the government can provide funding to nurture[这里用nurture不太好吧，用个简单的词support咋样?] the arts, the benefited artists can concentrate on composing their works without distracting by worry[worrying] about that [the]lack of money might lead to the abortion of great creative. In fact, almost every government administration invest in the arts in our[our?--the] history. The most obvious examples are the magnificent churches in Europe and other western countries. Many of the splendid artistic architectures were subsidized by the government at the building ages. The artists of that times created the fabulous stained-glasses with figures & [正式写的时候不应该有这种符号把，用and]stories from the Bible, the paintings of Holy gods and royal families, and the carvings, the sculptures, even the normal but also incredible beautiful candle holders, and countless refined artistic pieces with the government funding. Without the utmost support on the arts, we probably would not have our civilization and culture today. Government funding of the arts do stimulate the development of the arts.例子很有说服力~
However, there are two important arguments about the funding of the arts that should be taken into consideration. In the first place, by funding the arts, government might interfere the arts in certain degree. We need to recognize the reality that the funding [that]government can allocate on subsidizing to arts is finite. Not every artist or institution can be benefit from the government funding. Who will make the decision on what kind of arts or which artist or institution is entitled for higher priority while the others have less? The personal appetites and even interests would become vital factors in decision[-]making. Imagine if the arts with government funding are selected by the same administrator, there might not be various styles and any out-of-box masterpieces. Those non-mainstream arts that the funding officers dislike might not be able to survive when compete with the mainstream arts. 感觉有点没扣住government might interfere the arts来说，后面一直在说funding给哪个，说得太多了就忘了该回到怎么interfere了吧，只有最后一句回到了主题。

In the second place, is the government funding the only necessary resource for the arts funding? Obviously not.等一下，你的立场是I basically agree with the speaker's opinion吧？也就是说政府资助会危及到艺术的完整性,、你这儿说对艺术的资助还有其他途径好像在支持与自己相反的论点-艺术的完整性不会受到政府资助的威胁，我感觉是这样子的哈，我们再讨论：） Date back to the Renaissance Italy, many famous artists were subsidized by rich entrepreneurs. Nowadays, many galleries and museums are named by rich people's names, such as Carnage, Rockefeller, and so on. On the patronage list of every big art center, people can always find quite a few names who donated money to support the arts. To some extent, the modern arts are supported by enormous personal findings. Different patroness with different tastes and preferences in arts, so that the arts prosperous in a colorful way. And the artists do not need to sacrifice their personal styles and creative and pander to the patroness since every artist now has the equal chance to seek for the right funding person who appreciates his/her style of arts.

In sum, to preserve the integrity of arts, it is important to avoid unnecessary interfere from bureaucracy. Individual patronage can provide less interfere and become a vital support to modern arts. I concede the positive impact government funding did on the arts development, but it is a objective stubborn fact that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.最后一段又拉回来了哈

整个文章很流畅阿，用词不错，赞一个先。。。例子方面很恰当，就是个别语法错误还有最后那个论点有点问题。我们再讨论哈