issue85 很有问题，求强拍（有拍必回）

warlzcUID??2352912

希望有哪位提点意见。我一写完就觉得很有问题啊！！！！

题目：ISSUE85 - "Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts."
字数：437          用时：00:45:00          日期：2007-7-31 下午 04:01:24

I don't agree with author that government funding of arts threatens the integrity of the arts. On the contrary, I believe that government funding plays a important role of supporting development of arts and keeping their significances and integrity, although the funding breaks the creativity of artist in a sense.

First of all, without the helping of economy, no area of arts can exit. So I can say that the funding from government help the artists to solve many problems, which are on living or working. With the help of government funding, the artists can have much time and energy to create much more arts, which are based on their interests and inspirations. At the same time, the funding is a more important role to help the artists, which are gifted at some rare areas such as the art of suddenly change faces, to develop their areas, so that it can keep the various kinds of arts to be handed down from generations to generations. In a word, government funding that doesn't have the personal colors can help the artists to conveniently and freely create arts without the puzzle of economy.

Secondly, government funding has saved many arts that are in danger of extinction. For example, government imburse the local to rebuild or restore the old artistic buildings, and invest the museums to preserve the virtus, which there are rich in significances of arts. Because of the government funding, people can save the arts and hand down to offspring, so as to all person from the world can enjoy the arts. It means keeping a important and unpriced fortune for the world. On balance, government funding is propitious to develop and preserve the arts.

Admittedly, in a sense, the funding from government break the creativity of some artists. There are two reasons. First, in order to gain government funding, some artists are conscious to create the arts that are suitable the government or please the leaders, so that the arts, which lose their true soul that are endowed by artists, become no meaning and creativity. Second, some artists, who have received government funding, may change their own styles and ways to please the government and leaders, because of the pressure, which comes from the government, and a spirit of requiting. However, these are exceptional examples. And the government doesn't often effect the creation of artists.

In sum, from all discussion above, I can draw that government funding of arts is more beneficial to artistic development and existent than being harmful. So I support that government imburse arts, and arts are necessary to receive the funding to develop.

[ 本帖最后由 warlzc 于 2007-7-31 16:17 编辑 ]