issue101 大家帮看看！

feier521UID: 109747

101"Governments should provide funding for artists so that the arts can flourish and be available to all people."

I concede that sometimes governments should fund artists, and they possibly play a part to help arts develop and be available to people. However, the above assertion involves two problems that need further consideration, one is: should governments fund arts? The other is: must arts be available to all people? Answers to these question can help us well address this above issue.

Should government fund the artists on earth? In so far as I can think, arts should not deserve this assistance. Admittedly, governmental fund in a sense can help artists to create artworks and in turn lead to the survival and development of the art. Usually, artists have less economic resources since almost no enterprise and organization are reluctant to provide the salary for artists; moreover, they have to travel everywhere to pursue their inspiration which cost most of the private property. Consequently, economic problems always pester the artists and prevent them from continuing their undertaking. Thus the investment from the government may tackle their economic problems, reassure them to concentrate on their creations. Otherwise, how artists can promulgate their works? It also because of the governmental fund that they can set up their own exposition to exhibit their works. Although government funds can to some extent help artists and arts survival, however, they can never help them thrive.  Governmental fund is only a kind of material support to arts rather than the spiritual support. Excellent and unparalleled artworks lie in art’s soul and spirit, which come from imagination, creativity and free mind of artists. What’s more seriously, governmental fund, a kind of intervention, can not only impact the artists' creative thinking but it also affect the content, main topic and significance that the works want to express. Finally, the freedom of creation and the integrity of arts are damaged.

There are more reasons can justify that government should not fund artists. On the one hand, （呵呵，政府的功能又来了）the major functions of government are to prompt the economical development and keep social stability, to warrant people's safe and the integrity of its land, they also have to tackle with various national and international affairs, and to address more pressing and impending problems such as environment pollution, poverty, famish, etc., all of them need much of the governmental budget and the energy of officials, so it is unnecessary for government to invest in arts after weighting the importance of all problems need to be solved. In addition, arts can not merely be funded by the government, many private companies and magnates willingly fund the art. For example, Rockefeller Financial Group and Bill gates allot much of their money to support arts annually.

Let us see the other question: should artworks be accessible to all people? It is also unnecessary to do this, as I think. Many works are the outgrowth of artists' exclusive and even fantastic imagination, so the content, configuration and the inner connotation of the works often can not be comprehended by the public and even overreach the knowledge scope of those seasoned critics. Either meeting the taste of the public or teaching the public how to appreciate the exquisite works is not the work of the artists. If those who do not know arts at all give some ridiculous and fatuous remark to those classic artworks, this would be really a profanity to arts. Popularizing their artworks is not the decisive factor for the flourish of arts, but the inherent soul of artworks indeed is, just as I present above. This is to say that artworks should have impressive power to inspire people’s emotion and resonance deep in their mind and should process the sustained vitality.

All in all, it is unnecessary for government to fund for the artists to make their works approachable for all people as governmental fund can damage the integrity of arts to some extent. Arts needs the freedom to develop and thrive, but the development and thrive of arts lie not in being available to all people but in artists who can freely express their creative thoughts and endue their works with vitality.

paisleyUID: 64183

since almost no enterprise and organization are reluctant to provide the salary for artists;

这句话好象有点问题啊.reluctant是不情愿的.那么你的意思是不是刚好反了啊?

can not only impact the artists' creative thinking

这个我觉得其实是最重点的地方，可是你没有展开说哦。就一句话带过了，连为什么都没说啊.

我觉得你第二段的意思还不够明确哦.你的中心句仅是你不同意，但是我认为这个观点应该是在第一段里说的，第二段开始摆论点了，就应该把论点放出来。另外我觉得层次也不是特别分明.

后面两段挺好的。

语言上已经不错了，很明白.就是还有些词有点中文味道。呵呵。


还有我的想法是, 艺术家有两种,一是真正付出全部生命去创做的,二是商业环境下提供艺术商品的匠人. 至于后者，你说他们过的比较穷，就不太对(这样的人在国外是非常非常之多，装饰画也好，通俗小说也好,室内装潢也好，设计者都是匠人.中国可能这现象还没有非常普遍吧) 而前者，的确比较穷(为什么穷，你可以自己想咯。比如他们的作品太过于追求精神，脱离了当时普通人的欣赏水准和口味),可是他们往往宁愿穷也不愿意接受救济, 因为不愿意自己的艺术生命受到束缚. 所以在我看来,国家资助艺术家，要么就是没必要，要么就是没效果.


写得不错哟! 继续努力!

feier521UID: 109747

谢谢paisley的批改 ！确实 incisive！
reluctant－－》willing ：D
是啊，我第一段只提出了问题，没有提出观点。应该明确观点！
第二段本来想让步一下，政府的资助有点用，结果写了不少，后面再转折的话，这一段篇幅就很长了，所以关于政府资助的坏处的说理只是来了个中心句，没有展开，看来我主次颠倒了。

paisley ，是不是不该花那么大的篇幅让步啊？象这样的题可不可以拿出一段来让步，比如第二段专门写政府资助有一定的好处，后面几段在转折？
最后，呵呵，帮我指出那些词有中文味道吧（以前蛋蛋也说过），我自己都感觉不到。
呵呵，这就是think in chinese 的结果，要达到angei 说过的那种境界还差好远好远啊！

引自angei  名言：D
要让自己驾御语言，而不要让语言束缚了自己

feier521UID: 109747

小顶一下。
斑竹给解答解答。
我看孙远列的提纲大多是：
1 admittedly，显然让步要写一整段。可不可以？？？
2 However，开始了自己的观点
.....
提出让步的观点，要不要提出详细的理由支持它啊？？

paisleyUID: 64183

恩，我也觉得让步不要展开太多。还是集中精力写要驳的地方比较好。

中文味道重的地方，我一时来不及帮你找了。你需要的话发个悄悄话给我，我帮你仔细找找：）别忘了给我URL哦！

ken0405UID: 124994

WHAT IS URL？呵呵

tomatoeggsUID: 82073

最初由 feier521 发布
[B]小顶一下。
斑竹给解答解答。
我看孙远列的提纲大多是：
1 admittedly，显然让步要写一整段。可不可以？？？
2 However，开始了自己的观点
.....
提出让步的观点，要..

以下省略...... [/B]

临场发挥时实在不行，再用巴，起码这样能保证分数。

让步的篇幅看你是否觉得必要了。

paisleyUID: 64183

最初由 ken0405 发布
[B]WHAT IS URL？呵呵 [/B]

就是链接啊。：）