ISSUE85（政府资助与艺术完整 9号）2.18

NEU公孙轩辕UID: 2697609

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

观点：基本反对。政府的资助在很大程度上促进了艺术的发展和维护其完整性，但是也存在一些问题

提纲：1政府资助其实起到了很大的保护作用
       2 但是站在作者的立场上来想，政府资助的确存在一些问题，但是也不能完全否定政府资助
              3 即便退一步说，政府的funding 真的危害了，那么谁来funding?

                                                                                    有拍必回
Does government funding of arts really threaten the integrity of arts? After analyzing the statement, I conceive the reason leading to such a conclusion probably stems from government funding will break the natural development of arts, which consequently contributes to threatening the integrity of arts. Notwithstanding, from my viewpoint, the positive functions of government funding far outweigh the negative ones, and thus I cannot agree with the statement.

To begin with, I’d like to divide arts into two different kinds: the popular arts and cold arts which cannot promise to survive merely depending on themselves. As for the popular arts, such as movies, music and dancing, they themselves actually reflect the social demands of different people. Actually, government funding of these arts not only satisfy the public`s spiritual demands, but also help protect the integrity of arts to some extent. Additionally, when it comes to the cold arts, like paper-cutting, craving and calligraphy, government funding has been serving as a crucial and indispensable role in preserving the integrity of arts. Clearly, some ancient artistic forms still existing nowadays rather than extinction mainly emerge from government`s funding and support. Hence, government funding of arts actually do not threaten the integrity of arts.

Admittedly, viewing from the speaker`s standpoint, government funding of arts has its own deficiencies, which may exert some negative effects on the protection of arts integrity. Considering the integrity of arts perhaps focuses on the natural development and extinction, which means government funding will serve as a external forces to disturb this process, and thus threaten the integrity of arts. In addition, government funding is usually characterized with a preference tendency, and this will inevitably contribute to unequal opportunities to develop for different kinds of arts. Notwithstanding the forging reasons, we have got to realize that arts nowadays under the government funding has been becoming increasingly prosperous and various, and thus it`s unconvincing and unfair to suggest simply government funding threatens the integrity of arts.

Furthermore, granted that government funding do have threatened the integrity of arts, can we guarantee these numerous kinds of arts can be definitely preserved better without government funding? Or do we expect they can be conversed better by personal funding or social institutions funding? Things are obviously not the case. Indeed, government funding has been managing to protect the integrity of arts to the greatest extent. To substantiate my viewpoint, you can look no further than the huge project of saving the endangered arts across China. Therefore, government funding by no means threaten the integrity of arts.

To summarize, as I have discussed above, government funding actually plays a crucial and indispensible role in preserving the integrity of arts, and we cannot deny all the efforts government have made merely depending on some deficiencies.

十二国记UID: 2486274

1# NEU公孙轩辕
ISSUE85    Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

观点：基本反对。政府的资助在很大程度上促进了艺术的发展和维护其完整性，但是也存在一些问题

提纲：1政府资助其实起到了很大的保护作用
       2 但是站在作者的立场上来想，政府资助的确存在一些问题，但是也不能完全否定政府资助
              3 即便退一步说，政府的funding 真的危害了，那么谁来funding?

                                                                                    有拍必回
Does government funding of arts really threaten the integrity of arts? After analyzing the statement, I conceive the reason leading to such a conclusion probably stems from （感觉这里最好加个词比如the worry，不然介词后面不好直接跟that的从句）government funding will break the natural development of arts, which consequently contributes to threatening the integrity of arts. Notwithstanding, from my viewpoint, the positive functions of government funding far outweigh the negative ones, （and） thus（，） I cannot agree with the statement.

To begin with, I’d like to divide arts into two different kinds: the popular arts and cold arts（冷门艺术可以用这个词么？not popular好些吧） which cannot promise to survive merely depending on themselves. As for the popular arts, such as movies, music and dancing, they themselves actually reflect the social demands of different people. Actually, government funding of these arts not only satisfy the public`s spiritual demands, but also help protect the integrity of arts to some extent. Additionally, when it comes to the cold arts, like paper-cutting, craving and calligraphy, government funding has been serving as a crucial and indispensable role in preserving the integrity of arts. Clearly, some ancient artistic forms still existing nowadays rather than extinction mainly emerge from government`s funding and support. Hence, government funding of arts actually do not threaten the integrity of arts. （注意政府资助会影响艺术的完整不在于他支持的哪些艺术，而在于被他会选择性地忽略哪些艺术。）

Admittedly, viewing from the speaker`s standpoint, government funding of arts has its own deficiencies, which may exert some negative effects on the protection of arts integrity. Considering the integrity of arts perhaps focuses（relies会不会更好些？） on the natural development and extinction, which means government funding will serve as a external forces to disturb this process, and thus threaten the integrity of arts. In addition, government funding is usually characterized with a preference tendency, and this will inevitably contribute to unequal opportunities to develop for different kinds of arts. Notwithstanding the forging reasons, we have got to realize that arts nowadays under the government funding has been becoming increasingly prosperous and various, and thus it`s unconvincing and unfair to suggest simply government funding threatens the integrity of arts.（感觉这里提到艺术也会自然消亡这一点很独特，很有创新性！但是对于为什么政府资助会影响艺术的完整性还是没有做深入分析，个人觉得政府特别是意识形态强的政府会通过资助，以及舆论引导的方式缩小它不想看到的艺术的生存空间。例子嘛，汉朝的独尊儒术，罢黜百家应该可以算一个吧。（不知道对不对，欢迎讨论））

Furthermore, granted that government funding do have threatened the integrity of arts, can we guarantee these numerous kinds of arts can be definitely preserved better without government funding? Or do we expect they can be conversed better by personal funding or social institutions funding? Things are obviously not the case. Indeed, government funding has been managing（managed） to protect the integrity of arts to the greatest extent. To substantiate my viewpoint, you can look no further than the huge project of saving the endangered arts across China. Therefore, government funding by no means threaten the integrity of arts.（中国文化抢救工程的效果如何，lz可以再深入谈下嘛，这样论证也更有说服力。）

To summarize, as I have discussed above, government funding actually plays a crucial and indispensible role in preserving the integrity of arts, and we cannot deny all the efforts government have made merely depending on some deficiencies.
总结下，语言一如既往的流畅，语法错误也很少。不过就论点而言，我觉得太绝对了，可能会让人觉得有些片面化。比如，在美国，艺术的保护其实很大程度上是私人资金在起作用，当然在中国，这个情况就不存在了，中国的文化保护说实话不容乐观，总是保护了这个保护不了那个，主要是因为政府其实对这些文化了解程度并不是很高，总是存在滞后。而且政府也没有去鼓励民间力量，这样尽管政府下了大力气，往往吃力不讨好。话说那个圆明园的兽首还是民间人士收回来的呢，扯远了。。。，反正lz可以再挖挖这个论点的合理之处吧，可能会更让人信服。（说的不对还多多指教！）
我的习作有空帮忙看下：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1064581&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D101 谢谢了！

NEU公孙轩辕UID: 2697609

          谢谢十二国记童鞋的意见，下面给出修改后的


Does government funding of arts really threaten the integrity of arts? After analyzing the statement, I conceive the reason leading to such a conclusion probably stems from the worry government funding will break the natural development of arts, which consequently contributes to threatening the integrity of arts. Notwithstanding, from my viewpoint, the positive functions of government funding far outweigh the negative ones, and thus I cannot totally agree with the statement.(修改为：不完全赞成）

To begin with, I’d like to divide arts into two different kinds: the popular arts and "cold" arts, which cannot promise to survive merely depending on themselves. As for the popular arts, such as movies, music and dancing, they themselves fully reflect the social demands of different people. Actually, government funding of these arts not only satisfy the public`s spiritual demands, but also help protect the integrity of these arts to some extent. Besides,  when it comes to the "cold" arts, like paper-cutting, craving and calligraphy, government funding has been serving as a crucial and indispensable role in preserving them. Clearly, some ancient artistic forms still existing nowadays rather than extinction mainly emerge from government`s funding and support. Hence, government funding of arts actually do not threaten the integrity of arts. （注意政府资助会影响艺术的完整不在于他支持的哪些艺术，而在于被他会选择性地忽略哪些艺术）（我的意思：这里把艺术分为两类：一类是流行的，政府资助是当然的，因为这是人民的需要，资助的这部分艺术当然谈不上威胁；另一类是自身难以存活的，政府的资助在于保护他们，就更谈不上威胁完整性了）

Admittedly, viewing from the speaker`s standpoint, normal government funding of arts has its own deficiencies, which may exert some negative effects on the protection of arts integrity . Considering the integrity of arts perhaps relies on the natural development and extinction, which means government funding will serve as a external forces to disturb this process, and thus threaten the integrity of arts. Aditionally, government funding is usually characterized with a preference tendency.This will inevitably contribute to unequal opportunities to develop for different kinds of arts, and thus may accelerate the extinction of some kinds of arts which in returen threaten the integrity of arts unconsciously.(修改后） Notwithstanding the forging reasons, we have got to realize that arts nowadays under the government funding has been becoming increasingly prosperous and various, and thus it`s unconvincing and unfair to conclude simply government funding threatens the integrity of arts.（感觉这里提到艺术也会自然消亡这一点很独特，很有创新性！但是对于为什么政府资助会影响艺术的完整性还是没有做深入分析，个人觉得政府特别是意识形态强的政府会通过资助，以及舆论引导的方式缩小它不想看到的艺术的生存空间。例子嘛，汉朝的独尊儒术，罢黜百家应该可以算一个吧。（不知道对不对，欢迎讨论）(我的意思：第一点假设的是艺术的完整性依赖于其自身的发展或消亡，那么政府的介入属于外力，显然会威胁；第二点说政府的资助会有倾向性，那么不同的艺术的发展空间就不同，可能加速某些艺术的消亡， 从这一点来说也威胁）

Furthermore, granted that government funding do have threatened the integrity of arts, can we guarantee these numerous kinds of arts can be definitely preserved better without government funding? Or do we expect they can be conversed better by personal funding or social institutions funding? Things are obviously not the case, at least in China.(针对后面的建议，这里把范围限定在中国） Indeed, government funding has been managing（managed） to protect the integrity of arts to the greatest extent. To substantiate my viewpoint, you can look no further than the huge project,which including 39 items in 2004, of saving the endangered arts across China. In addition, Kunqu Opera and ancient Chinese zither have been listed as Oral and Non-material Heritage of Mankind recent years. Therefore, government funding, at least Chinese government,  by no means threaten the integrity of arts

To summarize, as I have discussed above, government funding actually plays a crucial and indispensible role in preserving the integrity of arts, and we cannot directly conclude government funding of arts threaten the integrity of arts merely depending on its own deficiencies.Thus, I find the statement one-sided and premature.(结论修改）

qisaimanUID: 2703629

mark it

covermeUID: 2502448

mark之,启发不少啊