- ×îºóµÇ¼
- 2011-11-26
- ÔÚÏßʱ¼ä
- 98 Сʱ
- ¼ÄÍбÒ
- 394
- ÉùÍû
- 0
- ×¢²áʱ¼ä
- 2011-1-1
- ÔĶÁȨÏÞ
- 20
- Ìû×Ó
- 0
- ¾«»ª
- 0
- »ý·Ö
- 372
- UID
- 2985653
- ÉùÍû
- 0
- ¼ÄÍбÒ
- 394
- ×¢²áʱ¼ä
- 2011-1-1
- ¾«»ª
- 0
- Ìû×Ó
- 0
|
TOPIC: ISSUE190 - "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."
WORDS: 522 TIME: 01:32:46 DATE: 2011-3-1 23:38:06
I am in favor of what the speaker claimed that the public resources should be reasonably allocated to the homeless or people who lack the basic survival skills living in a society full of the hungry or men out of work. Supporting the arts, however, in adverse aspect, is not anappropriate or even cruel, because from before, arts have impelled a lot to the development of human being including theories, career, culture, some of which helped solving the problems like jobs and created invaluable treasure. In my point of view, money spent on arts are a good use which is potential to make the society better.
It is no doubt that the first exigent problems of a society for the government to handle with involved femine, diseases, lack of jobs, in that if these basic problems concerned with citizens' daily life cannot be solved readily, a riot would be aroused. At this time, some people may say this claim sounds far-fetched to some, but the event happened in Egypt in January in 2011 gave us substantial evidence to support the opinion discussed above. The Egyptian succeeded in putting down the government through nearly one-month struggle for their rights because of whelming young people who do not have jobs and other reasons that the fundemantal needs of people do not meet. The public resorces are so rare that they should be disturbed to where is necessary when supporting the arts seems unnecessary.
Nowadays,in the main, majority of the arts are subsidized by the various funds established by private magnates instead of the government. In Renaissance Italy, artists Michelangelo and Raphael were supported by the Medicis, a powerful banking family, and even tomorrow, cultural support will come from new moguls including the likes of Bill Gates and Ted Turner. Thus, there is no problem existed about whether should the government spends money on the arts or not.
Last but not the least, the use of public resources to support the arts could benefit the society to help the people live better. The prosperity of the arts always amounts to much more occupations left to the people so that more and more people who are out of work. The society then could set into motion a serious of solutions that will be found to primary social problems. When people who already have jobs to feed on are not worried about their lives any more, the society will come into a good circulation that more money and resources will be created to allocate and help others who are in need. In this face of the topic, supporting the arts are sensible for the government to do so.
In the final analysis, government should consider all the potential uses of money and determine how much money should be spent on the exigent projects immediately;at the same time, how to support the arts also would be made into consideration. If we set up espousing the arts after all the problems done, then that day would never approach. As long as the government allocates the public resources reasonably, some social crisis will be worked out in a better way. |
|