1108,09AW 同主题写作第二期 ISSUE7 by Welk

welkUID: 2430165

7. Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

Art, usually regarded as alleviation for appreciation, has been ascending transformed into a common activity for the civilians with the proviso of government funding. The intervention of government funding into art has become one of the most controversial topics at present. This sort of art investment action calls for a balance between its involvement into the artist’s creation process and its supports.

More freedom and spaces will be provided for the artists to create their own artistically masterpieces with certain amount of government of government funding. Financial issues have been one of the biggest impediments on the artists creating values since even prehistorically times. The world of art would be much more flourish right now if those most ingenious talented artists, such as Van go, Shubert and Barack, did not die early of hunger and illnesses, owing to lack of money. Much more masterpieces then can be shared by us if enough government supports were provided in time.

Additionally, the appreciating qualities of common citizens viewing arts will be hugely improved in a large scale. With the government funding, small towns can have art avant-guard exhibitions in their own locality rather than big cities in a distance, broadening local people's horizon of art. People's knowledge and understanding towards art will differentiate and evolve though the process, as well as adding extra break time’s topic for entertainment. Not only can the atmosphere of a city can be more harmony and academic, but, for the individuals, they can also raise their understanding of art.

On the other hand, even with an unchanged seminal inspiration, the method of expression might be influenced by the unexpected step-in of the government. Though the intention of government funding, to large extent, may be purely benevolent of supporting the artist's life to concentrate more on creating works, the role of government plays in the creation process may transform. In view of that art works are usually the product of outburst of the long accumulated emotions from a sentimental artist, it is not so surprised to see that the image of a political figure may become a substitute for the symbol of good-will and kind-hearted when it comes to artworks that governments have supported. This sublime effect can have a butterfly effect that we cannot imagine with our fettered prospective.

Moreover, the definition of art in a sense is being too unstable and vague for the government to invest in, which may eventually results in a mass hysteria. Generally, the definitions of art diverge greatly from person to person. A talented masterpiece may turn into a waste of time and money in others’ view. Consequently, using the money that were collected from every citizen's tax to support few types of art developments will be considered a abuse of money or even catalysts for
chaos between the various kinds of arts which may eventually harm the integrity of art. Take graffiti as an example. Graffiti, which has long been discriminated as a vandalism symbolizing the drugs and chaos, is considered to be a kind of art by some people. Whether this type of "art" that people desires or the reciprocation of investing into diversity of arts are all unavoidable issues that governments needed to meditate on before providing the funding to certain artists.

For the reasons I presented above, I strongly commit to the notion that government founding into art is a beneficial action with a considerable boundary, not only because the complex individuality it concerned, but also because the involved effects on artists’ creation. Understandably, art can improve its popularity and prosperity along with the government funding that is fully organized and reconsidered.

TonyLicUID: 3037612

1.第一句 has been ascending transformed into是否有语法错误？还是transformed是修饰主语art，这个我不确定，望LZ斟酌。

2.LZ的文章结构很清晰，每段都是开门见山的点明自己的观点，这样值得学习。

3.LZ的用词和造句水平很高，用了很多高级词汇和长句，十分佩服。不过我觉得长句子是不是稍微有点多了，毕竟长短句交替变化才是ETS鼓励的。

4.第4段我读出的意思应该是在支持后一个观点，理由就是政府会影响艺术家的创作。逻辑上没有问题，但我觉得这段写的有点意思模糊，加上长句多，给人一种想说政府不该支持艺术创作但又欲言又止的感觉，建议LZ考虑下这段的表达。

5.举的例子实在是非常赞，值得我积累。

总的来说，LZ水平很高，写的非常NB。
个人观点，供LZ参考。

welkUID: 2430165

2# TonyLic

感谢同学的批改！！！抱

关于句子长度的问题我一直有点疑问的说，
虽然OG上的指导是说长短均衡为好，
但是给出的score-6的那篇sample全是长句。
第一段一句话，第3段两句话。
。。。。。。

不知道同学说如何理解的，
感谢同学的意见，咱们继续一起努力XD