AW作业——11.5G讨论组

rourourou_dadaUID??2985653

10.14   
I55  In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.

rourourou_dadaUID??2985653

55In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.


Although the creation of the work of art is necessary to be understood to reach a kind of resonance, its value is not based on the majority of people who understand it. Moreover, when any work of art is created in this criterion, it does not what is real art, and it deviate the direction of exploring spirit by arts.

Despite assorted effusions to the contrary, I have partly embraced the belief that the work of art should be some what understandable to a part-and —parcel of people. Art is a special language which is used to express thought to hope that others would have the same emotions. Freud ever discussed what is the art, and he claimed that art is an expression to demonstrate one's innate lust, mind like hatred, desperation, desire and so on, which is to arouse resonance and meet other people the same unconscious desire impulse. Thus , it is not excessive to want the art to be more understandable.

Art, in essence, however, is a some sort of exploration of one's own spirit, which express pure understanding of the world and human by individual opinion. Hence, it is necessary for every one to understand the arts and if a work of art is full of real emotions and thought, it can be said a valuable work. In fact, according to the limitation of different people's diverse educational background, experience and scope, almost none can completely comprehend what is the artists' real emotion and idea, underlying the work of art. Most people in the world can understand the abstract works of Pollock and Picasso who vented emotions in the paintings in a way of distortion, so it is obvious that few people can understand it; but it is also hard to disavow those are great work. Thence, the merit of a work of merit is not relied on the most people.

Let's imagine the picture that the world is filled with the Hollywood movies, novels, and pop songs without symphony, poems or documentary, that is , the genres people cannot understand. When artists make more people have a good understanding of their thought and art as the  principal goal, they may deflect the way of explore their own spirit to another way of creating works of art to fawn the other people. These works cannot be considered as arts and their innate values do not exist. Put another way, it violates the definition of the art, which express pure understanding of the world and human by individual opinion, for all the artists consider others' ideas, not theirs. In order for any work of art, it should not be understandable to most people.

In conclusion, any work of art could be understood by a few people instead of plenty of people. After all, work of art is not created to make everyone have a clear mind and no one can wholly understand the deep emotion and opinions of artists through their works. To create the work of art based on letting most people understand will just lose the gist of what is art.

emeraldyuenUID??2865055

Does the accomplish of art as the author asserts, you may wonder, has merit only when most of public understand it? Some people may take it for granted that if one work can't be intelligible to most of its appreciators, then the achievement itself doesn't have any reason to exist for their inscrutable meaning. However, as for me, I believe that the value of art doesn't merely rely on whether it would be understandable to most of people.

Admittedly, a large amount of masterpieces of art have wide audiences and votaries in history and they are also accepted by most populace. Consider ,one of the most compelling achievements from Shakespeare, Romeo an Juliet, for example, it is of great prevalence among young people and adapted to numerous plays and films for the reason that the work represents the archetype of young teenagers' love. The reason that causes its striking influence may result from that its romantic scenes and profound words which tempt the heart of teenage lovers. Hence, we can safely conclude that once a masterpiece of art wants to catch the populace's attention, it has to at least be perceivable to most of its spectators.

However, the accomplishment like Mona Lisa which also shares a great fame all over the world may be a strong opposition to the above contention. Needless to say, there are considerable artists devote all their life to plunging into the true meaning of the painting and may have nothing definitely concluded from its mysterious  facial expression, let alone normal people who have no necessary specialized knowledge and education. Despite the predicament it seems to be, it can't prevent us from appreciating it from the angle of its beauty and harmony which can arouse the resonance among originator and audiences. On the contrary, maybe the ambiguous of the paint is the most intriguing and possible factor that can absorb our attention to admire.

Besides, whether a masterpiece can be well-understood or not depend largely on the unique mastery of its author. Hitchcock, known for his eminent thrill film, is venerated by many of his admirers around the world. Famous as he is and Successful as his films are, we still can not guarantee that all the movie audiences understand his works fully. Because he pioneered many techniques in the suspense and psychological thriller genres, most of people can't totally realize the meaning of films, however, still many of them are engaged in Hitchcock's films' twist endings and thrilling plots featuring depictions of violence, murder, and crime. From such perspective, it’s ungrounded that we base our attitudes toward whether it can be understood or not is unjustifiable.

In sum, I can't agree the speaker's assertion that we can simply define the value of art by the understanding of most populace in that value of art can be determined by several factors like integrity, harmonious and expressing methods of its originator. Judging one's art achievement is not merely a judge of its popularity, thus we ought to estimate it from the prospective from both specialized commentary and public reverberates.

AetDezacUID??3182074

Is it an indispensible merit for art to be accessible to most people? The speaker confirms the positive answer for this question. But speaking of art as a whole, I believe, neglects necessary distinctions among various art forms, for these forms hardly share any common feature as is concerned in this issue. In other words, I neither agree nor disagree fully with the speaker, but insist that the claim can be properly analyzed only by qualifying specific cases where it applies or does not apply. In the following paragraphs I will discuss in which forms of art the speaker’s claim is apt and in which it is not.

To begin with, popular and commercialized art forms obviously need to be understandable for most people. Popular arts aim at bringing joy or rouse other emotions among ordinary audience, while commercial arts are produced to entertain common people, and making a profit through this. Without being able to be understood by most people, neither of the two could fulfill its goal. So however we may criticize them, there’s no denying that they must be made easy to most of us.

Apart from arts that are created to cater to average aesthetic taste, the kinds of art which serve to bring distant objects closer to us must also be easily understandable. For example, documentary films, travel notes, rewritten historical stories, these are among the forms described above. Since these are supposed to access audience to scenarios distant in space or time, it is unreasonable to make them elusive.

On the other hand, types of art that work to express the artist’s true spirit do not have to bear clear meaning to most people, indeed they often have to defy common standard of beautiful, or even normal. Consider Picasso’s painting, they may not seem engaging to ordinary audience, but on one would be able to exclude them from the line of elite masterpieces. In the case of Dali, the Spaniard painter, both commonly appreciable works and hard-to-crack ones had been painted, so we could only conclude that the abstruseness of certain works are for the sake of art itself. Kandinsky makes a more extreme example, whose paintings mainly consist of blocks and dots of colors, not so much different from doodling to uneducated eyes. If we would agree that these are with merit, then it is obvious that such art requires only acknowledgement from a few people who are able to appreciate them.

Finally, among professional artists, we find a sort of art dedicated to practicing and improving artists’ skills. These works do not have to meet common standard, nor even do they need to reflect artists’ spirit or personal beliefs. They only serve to enhance the proficiency of skills, so all that it takes is to be understandable to the artist himself, or anyone who would practice to it. For example sketches and etudes are two kinds of such works. Untrained viewers may fail to appreciate them, but since they are artistic to some extent, there is no reason to reject them as art.

In sum, for popular or commercial art, it is obviously true that they need to be understandable to most people, as claimed by the speaker. Types of art that aims at bringing close to the audience things far away from them also should be easily accessible. But for those which express the artists’ soul or inspiration, we must not impose such restrictions on them. A final sort of art includes sketches and etudes, which have to be understandable only to the artist himself or a few others. Neither a simple ‘yes’ nor a universal ‘no’ can be proposed concerning the speaker’s claim.

阿泣UID??2855092

ccroding to this statement,each worth work of art should be understand by most people, Though the speaker’s assertion may have merit, in my opinion, it unfairly generalizes about art.


Consider first the intend of art.In many cases,art pieces do not need necessarily to be understood by most people.According to what Freud has said, art, in essence, is a kind of release of individual lust, converting the human libido into plentiful creativity.It is worthwhile for a art piece as long as the piece express the ture emotions ,feelings or desires from the heart of artist. From this we can see, art is therefore, first and foremost, concerning with the inner world of artist rather than with the outside understandment.


Or consider the effect of art,such as paintings or songs,most of arts is just a main way to amuse in daily life.On the one hand,not everyone is a psychologist or a connoisseur,people in general can not understand the turely emotions from the art works,it is enough for us to only appreciate the art pieces.For example, for some music,as long as we find the song is wonderful or just attract our attentions in extent,in that case,the art piece is worthwhile.Besides, for some poem,maybe the poem is abstact or obscure,but when we read them, we found that it is really touch our hearts and make us realize the world portaryed in the pome is really a wonderful place.
On the other hand,as we know ,”there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes.” therefore,a artist could not satisfied all tastes of people.that is,a work of art can no have a futher merit, if it not loyal to the ture idea of the artist,but tried to cater to the people,or shaped by most people’s opinion.some commercial movies,for exemple,suit for the taste of most people,still can not be expected by film critic,then will be leave quickly.


It is ture that making the valuable art pieces difficult to comprehend or understand will enhence the felling of distance for the people in general.however,it does not influence it to be noted as a real masterpiece.for example,Picasso,a painter of post-impressionism,many of his paintings are abstract or eccentric in some extent,but his paintings still be regarded as some of the most outstanding paintings in the history.


In sum, the merit of art has little bearing on whether most people
understand it.As long as a work of art express the artist’s ture emotions and desires,and reflect a ture inspiration of the artist,in that case, the work of art is worthwhile.

ienglishnowUID??3186416

I agree partly with the claim that any work of art that has merit must be understandable to most people. Because the works of art have diversity forms and styles and the pepole have different aesthetic tastes and culture backgrounds, it is arbitrary to make such a statement.


Obviously, many valuable forms of art are accessible and easy to be appriciated by most people. In some meaning, it is becouse of its appriciation by most people that art has its merit. It is hardly imaged that Michael Jackson would amaze the world if his musical could not be understood by most audiences. It is also impossible for The Old Man and the Sea to achieve such a success in over 100 countries, if most reader could not grasp Hemingway’s ideas. Besides, it is inconvicted to say the Great Wall is a miracle of ancient China, if most visitors could not find her beauty and spectacularity.


However, the unique and unusual form of art, in some extent, can prevent the art being understood by most people. For instance, sand writing, a special Chinese calligraphy form, use sand instead of ink to write characters on a sheet of paper. Though it has a history of more than 300 hundred years and even exhibited in Shanghai World Expro as a world culture heritage, it remainds difficult to be understood for most Chinese common people, let alone foreigners. The main obstacle to appreciate sand writing is that most people have little opportunities to approach it, because it must keep in a static and horizontal position when displayed or transported from one place to another.


In addition, people with different aesthetic taste view the work of art differently. An antique chair that is regarded as an excellent work of art by a master may be considered as a common one by a workman. Sometimes, the percent of the people who share the same taste with the workman is much more than the percent of the people who hold the master’s view. Under this circumstance, we can say the most people can not understand the merit of the art.


At last, different cultures sometimes mean different definition about art. For example, a pottery made by an Indian tribe in Amazon may be mysterious for most people in modern society. If a man has no culture background of the tribe, he may find it impossible to view a simple pottery as a work of art. But a professional of the tribe will point out the value of the pottery and its significance in researching the tradition of that tribe. Unfortunately, most people are not familiar with the tribe, so they can hardly associate the pottery with art.

AetDezacUID??3182074

附一篇被某老师【非新东方，非大机构】改的作文，供大家参考
I122 The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.

To understand a society is never an easy task, the target being our own society or an alien one. it is, however, undoubted that the society must be understood as a particular in space and time, rather than the abstract categories into which it fit. Insofar as examining the heroes and role models is a better way than classifying it in various methods, I agree with the speaker; to note, however, that these figures may be superimposed upon members of society, and that one does not have to follow his respected hero, is to criticize the speaker’s claim. I therefore believe that looking into the proposed way is a good one, but not the best.【复述题目是较常见且较易入手的开头方式，但从立论效果和文字效率来说并非最佳，故建议采取更加开门见山式的方法提出观点。如需阐述背景，则尽量在其中添加为方便后文论述的定义性内容。】

To begin with, heroes and role models reflect what defines a people and a society beyond abstract classifications. It is attempting 【是否应为tempting】sometimes to describe a society using the latter method, but it may not serve to truly distinguish one society from others. There are many nations which, though similar in economics sense, vary greatly in taste, values, and culture. Germany, France and Britain may resemble each other in terms of economics, but they are different in many aspects, and that can be seen much better if we regard the admiration of soldiers in Germany, that of poets in France, and that of merchants in Britain. Besides, a society may change drastically, as in cases of revolutions, but in the meantime maintaining its characters. 【将论证范围具体化缩小化是很好的办法，例证切合。如能将”define”这点再深入论述会更好。】

And I hesitate to call it the best way for the following reasons. Firstly, role models may be selected only by biased authorities or passed down by tradition, and very often only referred to as models rather than followed as. This is especially true in many oriental 【此词属贬义，慎用】nations where tradition’s power is particularly overwhelming, or in totalitarian countries where authorities decide most parts of social life. Therefore we cannot hope to truly understand the characters of these societies by studying these models. And secondly, the admired figures may be respected for the extraordinary deeds or qualities, but that does not guarantee that people who admire them would in any sense be similar to them. Lots of young people today worship pop stars or top models, but if we bear in our mind this people and look at those who worship them, we may be disappointed in trying to find any trace of similarity. Instead we need to look for genuine reflection of the characters of the common people, their desires, their foibles, their problems, who or what they value most in their lives, rather than those publicly applauded.【结构清晰，语言流畅。但注意两点，①论证可以深入，即，多在现象背后的原因上下笔墨。②issue的核心是立论。可以从反驳”best”入手，但需将重点放在自己的观点上。本段只有最后一句草草交代真正的best way，所以整体风格近似argument。】

In sum, the speaker’s method in understanding a society does, in my view, exceed that of using abstract means, but fails to be called the best one, for heroes and role models are sometimes only put to people from outside, and they are but ideals rather than pictures of common people. One does not understand a person just by knowing his/her idols; same is true for a group of people.
【词句的准确性和多样性，语言的掌控能力和流畅程度绝对可超过5分，但论述方面的瑕疵还是给文章带来一定负面影响。平衡之下，我觉得你可以拿5分。】

祝好

Michael

AetDezacUID??3182074

今天（10.15）的题目是：
issue 80 Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.

ienglishnowUID??3186416

The speaker contends that government funding for the arts should be suspended if a large number of citizens are suffering from hungry and unemployment. I strongly agree with this statement, for two reasons. First, art can hardly solve social problems such as famine or joblessness in direct. Secondly, art plays an inferior role when citizens have to sustain their lives with difficulty.

As we all know, art is just a deliberate recreation of a new and special reality that grows from one’s response to life, not a loaf of bread or 1000 dollars or other things that can be used to solve practical problems in a direct way. Art is not an efficient tool to deal with the problems in daily life, because it only provides people with a feeling of beauty to enjoy them rather than a useful technique to help them get rid of life burdens. A man will starve to death without food, even if he possesses Picasso's masterpiece Guernica. A workman who learns the beauty of Rodin’s The Thinker but has no skills or work experience will find it difficult to find a good job in one factory. Obviously, for citizens who are hungry or unemployed, food and jobs are their more desperate needs than art. So it is advisable for government to spend the funding in the fields, such as agriculture, industry, that can improve citizens’ standard of living directly.

In addition, art is not always available to hungry and jobless citizens and even though they have an access to some forms of art, they may find it difficult to understand and appreciate it. There is no doubt that spiritual life is secondary to people’s indispensible physical life. So the first thing a very poor and hungry man wants to get is nearly always a ticket for a buffet rather than for an art museum. In this way, these citizens will lose opportunities to appreciate art because of lack of money, let alone to enjoy art. Even if they have chances to approach works of art, they may not grasp what the works want to express. First, citizens who live unstable lives may always consider how to make money to support their families and are likely to neglect the function of art. Secondly, these citizens probably have enough money to get a good education to improve their culture background, so some forms of art may frustrate them.     
  
However, some people may emphasize that art will improve standards of humanity, care, and dignity. Then people will become more charitable and they will help each other to make the world more harmonious. But I want to say the positive influence that art make on citizens are in a slow process. Famine and unemployment are in urgent need to be solved, otherwise hungry people will die, and poor families will bankrupt, and the whole society will become in a mess.  

In sum, nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.

AetDezacUID??3182074

Issue 80 Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.

Writea response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.


Weighing the importance of pressing social problems like hunger and unemployment against that of government’s sponsoring art, the speaker pronounces the superiority of the former. As I see it, however, while most people would agree that governments must first address real-world social needs, for they were created to serve this end, and that the task of supporting art compositions should be left to private funds or sponsors, it is in many cases too cruel to just see the withering of art and destitution of artists, as well as irresponsible, for our generation must also stand before future generations and be judged by them. If we manage to guarantee at least some form of funds for art, having no serious harm under any circumstances, we shall not be criticized as barbarian, for we care about beautiful things even when other things conspire against us. In the following paragraphs, I will first list the criticizing opinions.

Admittedly, governments are formed to the interests of citizens as a whole. Therefore the right function of governments is to provide public goods for the society. And art is seldom considered a part of those goods. Were any official to decide to sponsor art using public funds, he would be reproved or even sentenced for abusing his position. For, if any work of art can hardly guarantee to entertain a large group of people, why call it public good? The common sense of Western societies therefore indicates that governments must not be involved in supporting art.

Moreover, the same common sense tells us that private funds and sponsors will take the burden of enlivening the discipline of art, for there has to be, as we generally believe, someone who is well-off enough to support these artists. And if private sponsors can do the job very well, what do we need government funding for?

In my viewpoint, however, I believe private funding may sometimes fail. And since the possibility always stands, governments should reserve some resources in case art creation faces extinction in the society. In nations torn by war or disasters, especially in ones that hardly have the tradition of sponsoring art privately, private funds may find it hard to raise even the meanest amount of money for art, for everyone is waiting for the government to act. In such cases, I believe governments have the indispensible obligation to allow certain amount of resources, giving them to professional agencies qualified for selecting valuable works of art in their countries, in order to preserve at least some traces of the art of their generation. In most cases this will not seriously harmful to society even if it has suffered, because maintaining the lives and necessary convenience for the artists will not be significantly more demanding than common citizens. But doing so is greatly rewarding to the nations: they will stand proudly before the whole world, for they did not lose the love for precious and beautiful things, even faced by any adverse, and their traditions are unbroken.

To sum up, I concede that governments are nor usually considered as a proper sponsor for art, especially when significant number of citizens face hunger or unemployment. I also admit that most people would believe private funds can solve the problem on their own. But I, on the contrary, insist the necessity of maintaining a minimum level of reserved public resources in case private donations may cease to work. This reservation also shows our respect for culture, however difficult circumstances we meet.

rourourou_dadaUID??2985653

80Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.


It is known to all that the building of spirit is based on the presupposition that the basic need of making a life is met, so it seems true that nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. It also cannot be negated, however, that funding for the arts will alleviate the seriousness of the problem by providing more jobs. Whilst this measure can protect the traditional arts from disappearing which is great but not popular in the presence. And there is a better way to resolve the problem through relying on private funds to support he artists.

Despite assorted effusions to the contrary, it is accurate that one of the responsibilities of the government is to distribute the rare resources and money reasonably. Since the fund is limited, if there are myriad of citizens who are hungry or unemployed, the scant resources should be allocated to those people; otherwise, it will bring about something like Indian Riot which is caused by high unemployment and poverty. Meanwhile, according to the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a person will meet her spiritual needs like arts only when she have met the physiological needs, such as food, sex, or breathing. Combining the two aspects, it is not difficult to think that nations should suspend government funding for arts instead of assisting to those who are still hungry or unemployed.

However, in turn, funding for the arts by nations will always lead to surprising results. If the governments spend money on the arts, it will provide more vocations and jobs for who are unemployed. For example, Chinese government have carried out a lot of measures to help the arts develop by instituting some art colleges and encouraging the development of movies. More jobs are created for the people and a lot of young people have opportunities to have a systematic method to learn arts, which will play an important role in the future careers. Simultaneously, the boom of movies and other forms of arts incite the accumulation of wealth. Hence, funding for the arts will mitigate the problems, not strengthen or cause.

In another aspect, some arts which is not popular can hardly be conserved in the sense that it is no market to appreciate and no one wants to carry on. Government's funding for these arts is an effective way to keep these traditional arts from disappearing. Shadow play, for example, could be seen everywhere when my parents were children; but now it can be seen only in the remote village. The government is going to support the traditional arts, so we will see the shadow play in many art exhibitions. It works to keep our culture intact.

The government can also appeal to some magnates to fund for the arts. And in fact, there are many wealthy people are devoted to the society of arts such as Bill Gates and Ted Turner. More and more funds for the arts are supplied by those great men to help the development of the arts. So the government can pay attention to solve the problems about the hungry and the unemployed. It is the best way to not only assist the arts, but also distribute resources well.

In conclusion, government's funding for the arts is worth encouraging. It can solve the problem of unemployment and more traditional arts will survive. But it exists a better way——private foundations——to eliminate the hiatus between funding for the arts and dealing with the problem of unemployment.

fadotianUID??2733387

Issue 80
Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed

        The author points out the issue of fund allocation, the statement claims that one aspect of fund allocation that nations should stop the government funding for the arts when considerable population are hungry or unemployed. I have found there are some problems in this statement since it represents a very weak linkage between unemployment and art sponsorship(patronage). My reasons are as follows.
        
        First, it is justifiable that government should utilize revenue appropriately which indicates that the fund should flood into the mattersaspects to solve the immediate and practical problems. Yet could some particular issues, such as unemployment and famine be totally solved(settled) if sufficient fund provided by government is available? The answer is possibly not,  for a variety of elements besides financial supportfunding result in hovering rate of losing jobs and stavation. For example, the low-efficiency of administration by the government regulations in business market by the governmenwould bring about monopoly of commerical resouces, thereby some small companies collapse and people lose jobs. t,Or the unbalanced investment or the unfair rules enacted by policy-makers  would alsol generate the depression downcast of commercial situation resulting high rate of unemployment. In this case, redistribution of government input, especially from the realm of art auspice would make little effect on the demand for jobs or amelioration of people's subsistence. Secondly, money to patronize for funding art has just occupied a small amount of the total revenue whereas while most of them may put into education, infrustracture construction and medical assistance. In particular, . And considering the nature of the art decides  that most of artistic works are created and evaluated in a particular market which is similar to any other commercial scopes, and artists, just like any other professionals, earn their living by their own hands. And the buyers would choose their preferable works just as shoppers go to the markets to purchase commodities. Admittedly, there are some specific genres of art that require nation's special concern attention. Such types of art are either representative of distinct characteristics of this nation which has a significant role even in civilization of human beings, or they are denoted as the "higher art" which only a few group of people could appreciate and understand. For the former one, such as Beijing Opera of China which could not survive only depending on the commercial market, it would disappear forever if government would not subsidize sponsor to preserveation and develop pment by training new performers and pouring money. In this case, nation serves as the role of cultural patron nation sponsors not for its own sake, but for the global population. Next, cCompeting with the demotic artistic types which the consumption and support of fans could help them to flourish, the "higher art", such as classical music that only small number of people are able to apprehend the true value, has to rely partially from the government's auspice. To make every individual have the entitlement of spiritual enjoyment, the government have the obligation to nurture the environment of all kind of art.

HeronAlpsUID??3130247

80 Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.

It seems fairly plausible that when significant amount of people suffered hunger and unemployment, the national government should cease the funding, which has already been insufficient to tackle the social problem, for the arts and artists. However, I disagree with the statement in three respects. First, the development of fine arts does not always lie on the economic condition. Second, arts, to some extent, are essential factor in people's daily life. Third, arts themselves are productivity that may blaze the trail of a nation's fragile financial situation.

Many philosophers and sociologists believe that only does the living standard reach some certain level, the masses could create and enjoy the fine arts, as well as critize and preserve them. But, according to lots of special occasions in the history, the economy is definitely not the strict premise of the creativeness of arts. A great proportion of artists, for instance, can hardly sustain their livings when they live, and that period of time is very much likely to be the heyday of artist's life. Only one piece of painting did Van Gogh sell during his short life, and Beethoven even cannot maintain his livings without his sponsor's financial auspices. If we, in such case, completely suspend the funding for arts and artists, the historical symbols of human beings may be eliminated as well.

Furthermore, arts could always offer hopes for the citizens who may already be tortured by hunger and lack of jobs. Considering the great advance of Hollywood's movie industry in the Great Depression of US, the more enormous the obstacle is, the greater hope the fellow citizens needs. The suspension of funding for the arts is nothing more than depriving the promising future in which hungry citizen can look forward to.

Another negligence with the statement is that arts too can be indispensable productivity in the nation and worldwide. To expedite local economy and tourism, government need to promote arts industry which could play a major role in attracting investors and tourists. For instance, Japan exports comic products more than any part of its tangible goods fostering such thriving comic market that form a huge component of nation's economy.

In conclusion, local government may proportionally decrease the amount of funding for the arts. Nevertheless, the absolutely suspension should not be adopted, for arts not only cultivate our fellow citizens to have aesthetic tastes, but lead the people out of any crisis which they have been through as well.