[i习作temp] ISSUE190 [Dancing in the dark] by mobius.x64 [复制链接]

mobius.x64
UID：2628671

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 7
寄托币: 447
注册时间: 2009-4-13
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-9 13:26:15 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 mobius.x64 于 2009-8-9 13:33 编辑

190 "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate -- and, perhaps, even cruel -- when one considers all the potential uses of such money."

When society is faced with problems such as high unemployment, food shortage and low education level, is it appropriate to use public resources to support the art? In my opinion, this support is always necessary, not only for the profound changes, but also for the current recovery and further reascent of society. Society has solid reasons to support art so far as it possesses available public resources.

It is undeniable that nothing in the material world can replace the unique function of art for satisfying naturally mental world by its creative and imaginative way. The absence of art will bring darkness over the world, even if the sun rises as usual. Aristotle once said, "Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature.” here the term "imitation" refers to creative representation, which is typically regarded as the foundation stone of art in western aesthetics. The non-motivated purpose of art is the basic human instinct for harmony, balance and rhythm. That means the demand of art always goes with one's life, regardless of external circumstance. So, support for art signifies even in the society suffering from various kinds of troubles, as the individuals in society need to be mentally appeased or satisfied by art in the gloom of deficiency. Without this healing, to what extent can the society sustain its stability which could be deadly weakened by the cruel reality?

When it comes to the macro level, one should not forget that art can perform social functions to organize, to inspirit people. Art unites people in a community by fascinating them with life experiences or ideals shared by all, and then influences them to develop a less utilitarian and more devoted attitude on purpose of the whole community with motivation from mental satisfaction and enjoyment. Additionally, as one of the freest areas in which creativity can functionate to the greatest extent, art plays an important role in developing new propelling power for society. Clear images of such a role can be found in the Renaissance. On all accounts, any society, no matter its status, has no reason to decline the significance of art mentioned above and the duty to support it with any available resources.

Art is, to a great extent, less productive than other professions which serve more as the pillars of material productivity of society. And then it is very natural for one to consider the support or assistance on art is insubstantial in return and necessary only when the society runs in an affluent status. Nevertheless, as stated above, art contributes so much to the present and the future of society that support on it from public resources should be justified and ensured. And, withal, artists may suffer more from the crisis of society due to their professions -- they are usually not material producers. Thus, support on art makes sense in social equity as well. An easy example is the art program of the Roosevelt's New Deal in 1930s. During the period of the Great Depression, the Public Works of Art Project was launched, under the United States Treasury Department and paid for by the Civil Works Administration. The federal government believed the American people need not only the pressing employment policy to earn their livings, but also spiritual powers to boost them up. Over 3700 out-of-work artists were employed in the project, and some of their works stand among the most significant pieces of public art in the country today. Roosevelt once said: "Art is not a treasure in the past or importation from another land, but part of the present life of all living and creating peoples." Artists are social workers, and art is cultural labor worthy of government support.

Therefore, it can't be inappropriate, even cruel, to support art with public resources as long as the society is not standing in disorganization and still capable of functionating. Investment in art pays us back with seldom material works immediately, but life cannot go without it, especially in the bleakest time, in the most frustrating reality. More essentially, it is always part of life that can't be discarded despite of the troubles or crisis the society may encounter. And finally, one thing should not be forgotten that support policy on art has to be made according to the abilities of society. To survive is always the goal that has to be achieved first.

I'm living like this by choice