@@茶叶蛋炒饭@@ 第十五次作业 Issue85 请组员跟帖

mikestoneUID: 2734495

RT

mikestoneUID: 2734495

Basically, I don't agree with the speaker's statement.

To begin with, government funding of the arts helps many artists to concentrate on their careers. As we know, artists like us are ordinary people, although they are gifted in their work. They also need foods, clothes, and houses to live. When we refer to the realm of music, except those stuffs, musicians have to pay money for their tools such as piano. However, it is well know that the price of piano is too high for some gifted musicians. If they want to continue their careers, they must earn enough money for that first. In this process, they waste a lot of time in order to struggle for living and some of them abandon their works at last. So, the government funding of the arts can help these artists to treat their living problems, and make them focus on what they are excellent.

Moreover, even the government doesn't fund arts, laws and rules still exist to limit those works against the government and the nation and punish those who cause chaos and losses. The most important things for the governors are keeping the country stabile and improving the living standard of their civilians. However, not all rules, laws, and policies can make every person benefit. Some policies may even be detrimental to some groups. If artists notice some rules are partial, and create some works that may lead to chaos of all society and cause many losses. Is what they do right? Isn't what they do against the goal of arts and morality? So, no matter arts or artists are funded by government, there is a deadline for them. If they don't obey it, they will be punished.

Besides, real artists don't create works which merely praise the governor's behaviors; even they receive money from them. Yet they don’t contribute works against the government. Governors too make mistakes sometimes, and there are many open accesses for people to give advice or point out their mistakes. Artists can express their ideas and thought towards the government through these formal accesses, not create works that may influence the stability of the society. In my mind, the goal of the arts should be to reflect the real life and the pursue of people, not to extol or criticize the government.

In sum, I don't think government funding of the arts will threaten the integrity of the arts.

yeshen2010UID: 2744103

ISSUE85: Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.


Due to various backgrounds of times, government always has different purposes on funding the arts. From my perspective, I concur with the assertion that this activity may threaten the integrity of the arts sometimes. However, that a government provides financial aids to arts can contribute arts to be complete. And the developing of arts can also strengthen the influence of a government.

The optimal funding of the arts will threaten the integrity of the arts. Sometimes, a government invests money on certain arts because of its political policy. To make matter worse, with its political intends, government would strike other kinds of arts or even the authors. When reading history, we can know that there are numbers of examples. Victor Hugo, a French poet, novelist, and famous for his best-known work names The Hunchback of Notre Dame outside France, was driven to other countries because of his works touching upon most of the political and social issues of his time. His works were forbidden to be published. Besides, Hugo is also an exponent of the Romantic writers in France. The government's behavior suggested that it limited the developing of romanticism literature which is a part of arts. And as we all known, the kind of literature plays an important role in the following period after Hugo. Hence, a government selects to finance a certain kind of arts, and hurts some other kinds of arts will damage the integrity of the arts.

However, as the development of society, the funds aided by a government promote the advancement of the arts. For example, Nuo Opera, one of the most popular folk opera in southwest China characterized by its special feature, such as ferocious masks, unique dresses and adornments, was once regards to be evil. But nowadays, Nuo Opera has been selected as one of the non-material cultural legacies of China, and funded by the authority. Because in the past, people thought that the kind of opera was too scaring, and they could not accepted it. While today, due to people become more inclusive and pay more attention to protect traditional arts, the government funding of the arts encourages its developing.

Furthermore, the progress made by arts also brings effects to a government. In modern times, many nations expand their influence through arts, culture, and etc. Hollywood film is a typical example. One of the most popular movies in recently is Avatar, using 3D and bringing visual impact. When people watch the film, they are not only enjoying the movie itself, but also influenced by certain cultures, such as heroism, returning to nature. The film is broadcasted all over the world, and becomes the first film to gross more than 2 million US dollars. It is not just beautiful pictures and story people feel, but also the superb technology America has. The film passes the impact of the United States invisibly. Therefore, the progress made by arts can result in advantages to a government.

From what we have discussed above, I believe that government should support the developing of the arts with confidence and inclusive attitude so that to keep the integrity of the arts.

改Stone的I85
by yeshen

Basically, I don't with the speaker's statement.
这个开头也太简短了吧。你说不同意作者的观点之后，应该把自己的观点摆出来。

To begin with, government funding of the arts helps many artists to concentrate on their careers. As we know, artists like us are ordinary people, although they are gifted in their work（这句话逗号前后顺序要反一下，因为although是强调后面的部分，一般放在开头）. They also need foods, clothes, and houses to live. When we refer to the realm of music, except those stuffs, musicians have to pay money for their tools such as piano. However, it is well know that the price of piano is too high for some gifted musicians. If they want to continue their careers, they must earn enough money for that first. In this process, they waste a lot of time in order to struggle for living and some of them abandon their works at last. So, the government funding of the arts can help these artists to treat their living problems, and make them focus on what they are excellent.
论点：政府自出艺术可以帮助很多艺术家集中精力搞艺术。（这个论点是不是有点跑题？有待讨论）

Moreover, even if the government doesn't fund arts, laws and rules still exist to limit those works against the government and the nation and punish those who cause chaos and losses. The most important things for the governors are keeping the country stabile(stable) and improving the living standard of their civilians. However, not all rules, laws, and policies can make every person benefit. （这两句话好像和观点无关。）Some policies may even be detrimental to some groups. If artists notice some rules are partial, and create some works that may lead to chaos of all society and cause many losses. Is what they do right? Isn't what they do against the goal of arts and morality? So, no matter arts or artists are funded by government, there is a deadline for them. If they don't obey it, they will be punished.
论点：即使政府不资助艺术，法律和规则也会限制那些反对政府、国家的作品，处罚那些扰乱社会的人。这一段的论证思维有点混乱，看起来很费劲。建议文章中不要用问句。

Besides, real artists don't create works which merely praise the governor's behaviors; even they receive money from them. Yet they don’t contribute works against the government. Governors too（放到这里不知是什么意思） make mistakes sometimes, and there are many open accesses for people to give advice or point out their mistakes. Artists can express their ideas and thought towards the government through these formal accesses, not create works that may influence the stability of the society. In my mind, the goal of the arts should be to(删掉) reflect the real life and the pursue of people（没看懂意思）, not to extol or criticize the government.
论点：真正的艺术家不会创作知识颂扬政府的作品。

In sum, I don't think government funding of the arts will threaten the integrity of the arts.
结尾也太草率了。

小结：觉得你这篇文章跑题了。题目是要论述政府对艺术的资助威胁艺术的完整性，而你一直论述的是艺术家方面。建议重新思考一下。



改 蚂蚁的ISSUE85 by yeshen

There is a heat discussion about whether government funding of arts would threaten the integrity of the arts or not among people. According to my observation, government funding plays an(a) positive role in the creating, transmitting and protecting of the arts which are the indispensable parts of arts' integrity.
提出观点：政府在创作、传播、保护上对艺术的支持起了积极作用。

In the first place, the creation of arts benefits a lot from the supporting of government, which reflects government funding's effects on keeping the integrity of the arts since creation is the most basic part of arts. Without the creation, there would be no works of arts at all, not to mention the integrity. Nowadays government has done a lot to support the creation of arts. On the one side, government provides some basic materials that needed for artists to create works. It is obvious in China because you can see many areas in large cities, such as 798 Art Zone in Beijing, supported by government for attracting artists to work there. On the other hand, when we think about the origin of works of arts, we can find that it is the artists who create those masterpieces(复数). However, where do those artists come from? It is our education which is mainly supported by our government that provides our society the artists. From this point of view, government funding can help the creation of arts and so keep the integrity of the arts.
首先，艺术创作从政府支持中获益颇多。如：北京的798。后面讲艺术家的时候感觉脱离了论点了。

In the second place, after the works of arts created, they need to be propagated to other people in order to fulfill their values. Once again, government funding helps a lot. With the help of television, the works of artists can be known by more people, so do the artists themselves; with utilization of the exhibition, artists can also present their works to others and interchange the experience with others; with the help of interchanging projects among different nations, it is also possible for artists to introduce their works to the citizens of other countries. All these activities supported by the government help the arts be admitted by more people and transmitted to more areas. Without the propaganda of the arts, the values of these works cannot be recognized by others and it is hard to say that works of arts without being recognized are integral ones.
艺术作品出来后，为了实现他们的价值，需要传播给大家，政府也资助了很多。

In the third place, because our arts contains (contain) not only the arts of contemporary society but also the masterpieces of the old time, it is impossible to keep the integrity of the arts without the protection of the old ones. Just as the jigsaw, if you lose one single part, you would never make an integral picture. In the protection of old arts, government funding plays a more significant role. There are many protection areas in every country, for example, Longmen Cave in China, aimed to protect the old grand works. Government also supports some museums for the collecting and the protecting of the old days' masterpiece. Louvre Palace in Paris and the Imperial Palace in Beijing are apt examples to illustrate the government funding's positive effects（建议改为：the positive effects of government funding） in protecting old arts.
艺术不仅仅包含现代社会的艺术，还有以前的奇迹。主要谈保护以前的艺术作品。例子：龙门石窟、卢浮宫。这一段的例子没有展开论述，只是蜻蜓点水提了两个例子。

To sum up, government funding brings a lot benefits to the arts creation, propaganda and protection. All of these aspects are the indispensable parts in constructing the arts' integrity. As a result, it is obviously true that government funding can keep the integrity of arts rather than do harm to it.
政府资助确实对艺术创作、传播和保护带来了很多好处。

写的不是很好，虽然层次比较好懂，但是感觉没有论证开，语句也很生涩,错字也比较多。

总结：有些地方论证得还不够充分。

cycy881125UID: 2625420

written by AlanC
The speaker concludes that the integrity of arts will be broken by the funding of government. In some aspects, I admitted agree with him. However, government should give more funding one the arts, government’s funding has benefitted the arts more rather than threatened them, hence when the arts have combined with sufficient materials, it would be impel to develop into a higher level.

Along with the development of human technology, more and more products of science have offered us a more convenient life and work. Meanwhile, only with these modernized tools, human life could not be diverse. Necessarily through being companied with the arts, life would be abundant and excellent. Without the arts, human could not relieve themselves, life might be so tasteless and unattractive that man could put up with the next day. But suppose that one day there exist only the roar of machine and all kinds of noises but without the music playing around you. What do you think of the kind of life, could we bear even one more day. Absolutely not, hence the arts are such significant elements that it is necessary for human to exist along with them and government should take measure to fund them.


On the other hand, discussion concerning whether the funding will be disadvantageous to the arts or benefit them has been a critical problem. However, in my opinion, there will be more advantages to them when be funded. Since art is just like human’s spiritual activity with money like the material life, hence money should be the precondition of art, without support of materials, art should not be mentioned, and it is a daydream. We could suppose that what a situation would an artist be when being short of support of food, and provisions. I admit that such few of them as Van Gogh could continue composing, however, most of them would give up their career or their ability of art will be deteriorated. Thus with funding of government, the arts might be positively affected and it is possible for arts to shine.


However, sometimes integrity of arts might be influenced by government. When arts come across the politics, utility and economy have been mixed with; hence the nature of art would not be pure. Since government should not fund the artist only because of the funding of arts purely, it more or less has been added some factors of economy, then it is the duty for artists supporting by them to satisfy their available demands, thus the government will restrict arts. For some time, when funding a painter, he might be demanded to compose a composition which does not conform his initial inclination, and this kind of painter would lack of nature of arts with the utility mixed with it.



To sum up, arts are the necessary element of human life, without them, life would be so tasteless that human could not have a nicer life. Then because of the factor of materials, funding of government would make a significant contribution to the arts. However, when government excessively interfere arts when funding on them, the integrity of them should be threatened.

imlifewillingUID: 2706999

by 懒蚂蚁
14:17
There is a heat discussion about whether government funding of arts would threaten the integrity of the arts or not among people. According to my observation, government funding plays an positive role in the creating, transmitting and protecting of the arts which are the indispensable parts of arts' integrity.

In the first place, the creation of arts benefits a lot from the supporting of government, which reflects government funding's effects on keeping the integrity of the arts since creation is the most basic part of arts. Without the creation, there would be no works of arts at all, not to mention the integrity. Nowadays government has done a lot to support the creation of arts. On the one side, government provides some basic materials that needed for artists to create works. It is obvious in China because you can see many areas in large cities, such as 798 Art Zone in Beijing, supported by government for attracting artists to work there. On the other hand, when we think about the origin of works of arts, we can find that it is the artists who create those masterpiece. However, where do those artists come from? It is our education which is mainly supported by our government that provides our society the artists. From this point of view, government funding can help the creation of arts and so keep the integrity of the arts.

In the second place, after the works of arts created, they need to be propagated to other people in order to fulfill their values. Once again, government funding helps a lot. With the help of television, the works of artists can be known by more people, so do the artists themselves; with utilization of the exhibition, artists can also present their works to others and interchange the experience with others; with the help of interchanging projects among different nations, it is also possible for artists to introduce their works to the citizens of other countries. All these activities supported by the government help the arts be admitted by more people and transmitted to more areas. Without the propaganda of the arts, the values of these works cannot be recognized by others and it is hard to say that works of arts without being recognized are integral ones.

In the third place, because our arts contains not only the arts of contemporary society but also the masterpieces of the old time, it is impossible to keep the integrity of the arts without the protection of the old ones. Just as the jigsaw, if you lose one single part, you would never make an integral picture. In the protection of old arts, government funding plays a more significant role. There are many protection areas in every country, for example, Longmen Cave in China, aimed to protect the old grand works. Government also supports some museums for the collecting and the protecting of the old days' masterpiece. Louvre Palace in Paris and the Imperial Palace in Beijing are apt examples to illustrate the government funding's positive effects in protecting old arts.

To sum up, government funding brings a lot benefits to the arts creation, propaganda and protection. All of these aspects are the indispensable parts in constructing the arts' integrity. As a result, it is obviously true that government funding can keep the integrity of arts rather than do harm to it.
写的不是很好，虽然层次比较好懂，但是感觉没有论证开，语句也很生涩,错字也比较多。
15:00

修改Alanc
The speaker concludes that the integrity of arts will be broken by the funding of government. In some aspects, I admitted agree(agree) with him. However, government should give more funding one(on) the arts, government’s funding has benefitted the arts more rather than threatened them, hence when the arts have combined with sufficient materials, it would be impel(impelled) to develop into a higher level.
开头表明了自己的观点。但是最后一句话结构有问题啊。是两个短句简单的放在一起了。感觉句子之间的链接不是很好。要推敲一会才能明白你的观点。
Along with the development of human technology, more and more products of science have offered us a more convenient life and work. Meanwhile, only with these modernized tools, human life could not be diverse. Necessarily through being companied with the arts, life would be abundant and excellent. Without the arts, human could not relieve themselves, life might be so tasteless and unattractive that man could put up with the next day. But suppose that one day there exist only the roar of machine and all kinds of noises but without the music playing around you. What do you think of the（that） kind of life, could we bear even one more day. Absolutely not, hence the arts are such significant elements that it is necessary for human to exist along with them and government should take measure to fund them.
说明艺术的重要性，但是你的段首句并没有表明观点。说明了没有艺术生命很枯燥。句子给人感觉很晦涩，至少我看到很吃力。
On the other hand, discussion concerning whether the funding will be disadvantageous to the arts or benefit them has been a critical problem. However, in my opinion, there will be more advantages to them when be funded. Since art is just like human’s spiritual activity with money like the material life, hence money should be the precondition of art, without support of materials, art should not be mentioned, and it is a daydream. We could suppose that what a situation would an artist be when being short of support of food, and provisions. I admit that such few of them as Van Gogh could continue composing, however, most of them would give up their career or their ability of art will be deteriorated. Thus with funding of government, the arts might be positively affected and it is possible for arts to shine.
政府的资助很重要，主要原因就是政府提供了物质基础。语句太不通顺了。还有就是怎么感觉就是论证无力，你举得是梵高的例子，但是是你论证的反面，如果说不清楚，很哪有说服力的，还不如举一个和你的论证一致的例子。
However, sometimes integrity of arts might be influenced by government. When arts come across the politics, utility and economy have been mixed with; hence the nature of art would not be pure. Since government should not fund the artist only because of the funding of arts purely, it more or less has been added some factors of economy, then it is the duty for artists supporting by them to satisfy their available demands, thus the government will restrict arts.（看不明白） For some time, when funding a painter, he might be demanded to compose a composition which does not conform his initial inclination, and this kind of painter would lack of nature of arts with the utility mixed with it.
说明政府资助的坏处，语言还是没弄明白。感觉很混乱。since用的太多，文章的因果关系我都搞不明白了。
To sum up, arts are the necessary element of human life, without them, life would be so tasteless that human could not have a nicer life. Then because of the factor of materials, funding of government would make a significant contribution to the arts. However, when government excessively interfere arts when funding on them, the integrity of them should be threatened.
结尾对应了文章中的三个段落，这个还可以。但是你最好在升华下。你说完了好处，坏处，那你完全可以提炼下，说一下政府该怎么样资助艺术。

总结，文章的思路还算清晰，但是各部分之间的联系不强，好像在说几件不同的事，还有就是语言要训练下了。