ISSUE 190【clover】 by a08805436

a08805436UID: 2725634

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


Is it really inappropriate and cruel of using public resources to support the arts when hunger, unemployment and other problems exist in society, as the speaker contends? I fundamentally agree with the speaker to the extent that it is the duty of society to help those helpless and breed those hapless. However, the speaker fails to consider that benefit of arts on the side of the whole society.

First and foremost, there is no denying the fact that physiological needs of people are of vital importance in a society and the government should take the issues such as hunger and unemployment into consideration. Compared with artistic creations or aesthetic enjoyment, the physical elements constitute the very force that offers us energy and power. An ancient Chinese saying that those who constantly eat a lot tend to be productive seems to be quite illustrative in this respect. But I would rather interpret this as implying that when human physiological needs are not fulfilled, it is hard for them to enjoy the ablution of arts. Therefore using the social resources to help those in need is quite justifiable in this sight.

However, the speaker neglects the basic needs of human being contains the very needs of spiritual satisfaction and mental fulfillment. Yet art, serves as its role to breathe into every solitary soul the warmth of life, could propel the whole society forward in the course of human history. When social elements such as food, shelters, jobs and so forth satisfy the physiological needs, the art changes the guiding mentality in a society. When confronted with an exquisite masterpiece of painting and a bad meal, starved animals or beasts would choose the latter by no time. However, we human beings shall ponder on this convoluted issue and thus making our own choice. For spiritual nobility as well as mental dignity is the only distinction between humans and animals. If we choose to live a life without the nourishment of love, commiseration and hope, we would be no different from the animals.

Moreover, arts, showing the irresistible yearning of beauty, subtlety and dignity, could in turn benefit the people in need of help considering the use of social resources.
Exhibitions of paintings and development of films could help solve the problem of unemployment and starvation. In this way, art repays what it gets. Meanwhile, funding on arts could serve to help the artists live a life and be more concentrate on working. The common scene is that both of them could get their proportion and they do not need to fight against the other. Furthermore, with the psychological consolation and spiritual appeasement of art, the whole society tends to be more powerful on the road ahead. In this sense, the government support of art, in turn, provide interest of such aids in forms of better mental state of its citizens.

In final analysis, while the physiological needs should always be taken at first place, it does not necessarily require the sacrifice of art. In my opinion, both social problems and arts should be aided by government according to diversified conditions of different places and different times.

a08805436UID: 2725634

2# Bela1229
新年快乐哈~！！