ISSUE 7 求批改

cafatheoUID: 3409779

第一次issue，选了一篇自己感觉相对简单的，词汇量不大，用词都比较简单。
请各位帮忙看看。多谢大家！

题目：
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.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

提纲：
一、（段1）两个观点各有道理，但是不利方面可以避免。
二、（段2-4）政府funding对艺术的繁荣和普及是必要的。
（1）（繁荣）青年艺术家和不出名的艺术家需要政府支持以完成创作
（2）（繁荣）有的艺术需要政府支持否则会消失
（3）（普及）政府funding让更多人可以享受艺术，博物馆之类的……
三、问题（段5）反：（1）funding来源不一定是政府，所以不是必要的 （2）政府资助会使艺术作品受到意识形态干扰
四、（段6）正：（1）其他赞助来源是杯水车薪，政府funding还是必要的（2）建立有效的资助机制可以减少政府对艺术的负面干预
五、（段7）总结，政府funding目前是必要的。

正文：
Government has been playing the role of the art sponsor since a long time ago. Some people reckon that government funding of arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Yet others argue that this funding threatens the integrity of the arts. I agree with the latter opinion under some circumstance. However, that doesn't means the former view can be refuted. Strictly speaking, the two views are not opposite to each other but only from different standpoints. And the negative respect of the government funding might be partly avoidable in some way.

Admittedly, art circles cannot be self-sufficiency, making them ask for help from government. Art may not be survived without the government funding not to speak of prosperity. The development of art relies on the creativity and talent of artists. However, an artist who is young or infamous at present generally cannot support himself by his art creation even though he is talented and promising. It happened very often that an artist give up his career because of poverty or alter his idea in order to meet the favor of the market, which might decrease artistic value of the work and impede his expression of his mind. The support from government is necessity for those who are hard struggling against poverty to subsist, finish their works and even achieve their artistic ideals.

Hollywood movies may not need the grant from government because they are popular enough to earn from the audience’s ticket payment. Unpopular, however, some kinds of art may not be as fortunate as commercial movies, such as Avant-grade arts, minority arts or a traditional dance from a primitive tribe. In such case, government funding of the art is the security for those arts which could not be self-sustaining but significant for the cultural development.

In addition, the government funding is necessary to ensure that arts can be available to all people. For instance, not everyone can afford to buy a painting from Vincent Van Gogh, go to the music hall for a Tchaikovsky’s concert or visit a theatre to enjoy Mozart’s le nozze di Figaro the opera. But the government’s support to museums and outdoor sculptures makes the public gain access to arts. And the concert and opera can shows in communities under the support of government. All people will benefit from the government funding the arts.

Nevertheless, here are some problems. Firstly, though the art flourish and spread need funding to support, it might not necessary for government to do so. Art could be funded by wealthy individuals, private foundations, and social institutions. What is more, it’s not unnecessary to worry that art patronage from government will imperil art integrity and artists’ independence. Government decides where money goes to. Controlling the source of finance, government would heavily censor the art works and interfere in artistic creation with its ideology. Artists may pander to government in order to get the money, which might make their works be utilized by politics and threaten the health of art world development.

Though there’s other method to get financial aids, these are utterly inadequate methods in dealing with a severe situation without official supporting. The negative effect, however, would be avoided to some extent if an effective mechanism can be built. For instance, government could promise to lift the censorship about art and not to interfere in art making, giving the artists enough freedom to create their works and could authorize a professional institution to choose the artists they support but not by the political reason.

In sum, government funding of the art involves both positive and negative respects. Though it might threaten arts integrity of the arts under some circumstance, it would be unrealistic for arts run without the government funding. Government should and has to be the indispensible sponsor for art to ensure the arts can flourish and available to all people at least for the moment.

YingXinAnnUID: 3462147

同是新手，个人观点

首段点题点了，立场有了，但是没有为下文展开做布局。
/*感觉表达观点时感觉有点含糊，我感觉虽然观点是大正小负的，但是正负观点相对集中些会好，如果没有时间或者逻辑的先后顺序的话，观点正负交替表现出来作者内心的不果断*/
三段其实是二段的例子，不如写成一段

感觉观点有点太单向了，基本上是在围绕第一个观点展开的
你是这样写：
1、政府资助有利于艺术和艺术家的生存
2、政府资助有利于人民接触艺术
3、但是仍然有问题：并不只是政府可以资助；政府资助会引来审查和倾向
4、但是其他方面的资助是不足的，而且政府可以不审查

感觉作为平衡观点题这样写会有问题。
不是说观点不可以有大的倾向，而是你在论述的时候必须考虑两方的观点,比如：
我同意政府资助会让艺术繁荣，因为
1、他解决了温饱问题
2、他让人民更容易接近艺术
我不同意政府的资助会损害艺术事业，因为
1、审查制度
2、……
（其实你写其它人的资助是不在讨论范围之内的，除非作为让步段）

用词我就不说了，我和你差不多一个等级。
就是结构估计要调下，然后首段根据中间段的结构调下

YingXinAnnUID: 3462147

伤了个心啊，估计这里也是冷冷清清的……