issue85 再贴一片 求版主和其他好心人指点

blueseaheartUID: 127701

Issue 85 "Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts."
提纲:AGREE
1 政府的资助损坏艺术作品的创造性和独立性.
2 有限的资金的分配是一个难题,如何保证艺术的多元化.
3私人的捐助是一条BETTER WAY.
When it comes to government subsides, such questions arise: Do the Arts actually NEED government funding? Does the national endowment for the arts really threaten the integrity of the arts? The debate on the merits of government funding of the arts is a hot issue. As far as I concerned, Government funding is hazardous to artistic health and integrity.

Before discussion, we must define the integrity of the arts. I think it has two-fold meanings: First, it refers to the diversity of the arts. Second, it means that artists should have the independence and free creativity.

Government support for the arts is inherently problematic. It breeds passivity, undermines the independent creative spirit. It makes artists shift the focus from creativity towards pleasing funding bodies. The importance of individual passion and creativity are undercut by the funding regime. And much more! It raises the question of official art, whether that art be the standard of the public, government officials, or a largely self-chosen art establishment. In the Netherlands, for example, the government guaranteed a market for the works of professional artists.  If no one else would buy their work, the government paid them for it. This was commonly referred to as the "Dutch treat". They had a huge warehouse full of art that wouldn't sell. This assured the survival of artists, but it also assured the creation of a lot of bad art.
(第一，扼杀创造力)
Also, The process of official encouragement of some kinds of art and official discouragement of others will have begun to influence artistic directions. It must cause the imbalance of the development of the arts. For example, vast investment in the Beijing opera would hurt other local operas. As a result, some kinds of small operas might become extinct. （第二，消除艺术的多元性）

Furthermore, limited resources mean decisions have to be made to fund or not to fund. The criteria ultimately include an aesthetic judgment that necessarily select the relative worth of one artistic entity (be it an organization, project or individual) among all participating in competition for the same dollars. Questions arise: What resources should be committed to supporting art that is not popular? Does art deserve to be supported if there are not sufficient patronage for it to survive on its own merits? What’s more, funding agencies take efforts to assure a diverse and objective mix of panelists. But no panel is qualified to evaluate every application. If a representative of some art form have no strong support, there must be an imbalance in arts diversity. What shall we do to ensure the diversity of the arts?  There is no easy answer to this. The only obvious solution is to have sufficient public funding available to ensure the survival of all the arts in a community so that the hard decisions don't have to be made. （第三，资金的有限造成分配的不均匀，因此艺术形式的不平衡）


Private patronage on the whole is a far better protection for diversity and independence than any governmental program can be. Without government direction and intervention, the arts can avoid being byproducts of government and freely create what artists want to express.Private patronage has its randomicity; therefore any art form has equal chance to be funded. Meanwhile, through free competition excellent artists have the freest space to display their creativity.

In sum, despite opposing views, I believe that the arts are an important area in our society, which should be given freedom. Without the help of the government, we could be doing some useful things to our nation's creative future.

木耳UID: 123036

几个小问题
are not sufficient patronage
are not sufficient patronages

but it also assured the creation of a lot of bad art.
but it also assured the creation of a lot of bad arts.

The criteria ultimately include
The criteria ultimately includes

limited resources mean decisions have to be made to fund or not to fund.好像表述的不是很清楚

What resources should be committed to supporting art that is not popular?这里讨论的是一个赞助标准的问题，好像和是否popular关系不大。

If a representative of some art form have no strong support
If a representative of some king of art form has no strong support

第五段最后最好再加一句：However, the funding for arts is always limited to ensure all arts’ survival.

木耳UID: 123036

写得非常不错！
首先格式符合要求
逻辑和语言也很好
如果篇篇都是这个水平，那考试肯定没问题
加油！

blueseaheartUID: 127701

写得非常不错！
首先格式符合要求
逻辑和语言也很好
如果偏偏都是这个水平，那考试肯定没问题
加油！ [/B]

好激动，练了好久了，总算有一点进步了。谢谢木耳的评论和鼓励。非常感谢！！！

豌豆UID: 144569

When it comes to government subsides, such questions arise: Do the Arts actually NEED government funding? Does the national endowment for the arts really threaten the integrity of the arts? The debate on the merits of government funding of the arts is a hot issue. As far as I concerned, Government funding is hazardous to artistic health and integrity.

我很赞同用这样的开头,看的出来是经过一番逻辑思考的.写的不错!!

ken0405UID: 124994

好观点
拿去看看先

ken0405UID: 124994

不过
我觉得第3点(private那个)有点多余了.
还不如在多元性下手呢.
还有个人支持就没有direction and intervention?
除非:艺术家自己支持自己

木耳UID: 123036

最初由 ken0405 发布
[B]不过
我觉得第3点(private那个)有点多余了.
还不如在多元性下手呢.
还有个人支持就没有direction and intervention?
除非:艺术家自己支持自己 [/B]

ken前辈说的有一定道理
我想你的意思是要说政府支持带有很强的政治目的和意识形态色彩，而且为了统治的目的，政府总是要寻求一种人民大众在思想上的统一；而对比个人捐助，虽然也会有direction and intervention，但其根本的出发点一般都是出于个人喜好，是出于发展其所喜好的艺术形式的目的，对艺术总是利大于弊的。你是这个意思吧？

不写这段也无所谓，你的字数已经很多了

blueseaheartUID: 127701

"政府支持带有很强的政治目的和意识形态色彩，而且为了统治的目的，政府总是要寻求一种人民大众在思想上的统一；而对比个人捐助，虽然也会有direction and intervention，但其根本的出发点一般都是出于个人喜好，是出于发展其所喜好的艺术形式的目的，对艺术总是利大于弊的." 而且个人的支持是任意的。

字数是够了，我只是想写深刻点，如何解决这个问题？

木耳UID: 123036

鱼与熊掌不可得兼。
到了考场上，能在规定时间内写完并检查一遍就是成功。
参见置顶的[共性问题]最后一条。妥协是一定需要的。