issue85 木耳点评

sniper613UID: 147372

Issue85"Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts."


When human beings came to the Earth, they also brought with arts. In different countries in the world, there are all kinds of arts, such as music, painting, poem, novelty, and so on. Artists usually need money and public support to create their arty works. Meanwhile, there is a debate whether arts need the government's funding between different individuals. In the point of my opinion, I hold the view that it is necessary for arts to get the support from government's funding, but sometimes it would threaten the integrity of the arts.


In human's history, many famous arty works came to the world without any government's funding. In the Middle Age in Europe, so many artists accomplished their famous achievements without any funding from government. For example, Van Gogh, who was one of the great artists in our world, created many paintings. In Van Gogh's time, he did not get any funding from government even the support from public. But under this situation, he created a large number of works, such as the Sunflower, which is one of the expensive and famous paintings in our modern society. Beethoven is another example. His Symphony No.5 is popular in all corner of the world, but he also did not get the funding of government. Therefore, without the funding of government, many artists also could create famous works.


In the modern society, especially in the market economy, government funding arts could benefit the creation of arts. In order to understand the gist of the statement, it is necessary to see an example. Singapore government always offers funding to the artists in the country. But the government never regulates the kinds of arts, which the artists have to create. As is known to all, the arts in Singapore are heath and contain nearly all kinds of them. Meanwhile, in India, especially in the market economy, ordinary people do not like poems. If they do not get the funding from the government, many poets would not write any poems in the future. So Indian government funds poets to keep working on creating poems. Thus, from the two instances mentioned above, it can be concluded that artists in the modern society usually need the funding from government.


However, if the government extraordinarily funds arts, it would harm the integrity of them. The typical instance is U.S.S.R. In the 1950s to the 1990s, the U.S.S.R. government always funded the arts. In order to get the funding from the government, many artists in U.S.S.R. chose to create some arty works, which the government preferred to. After several decades' development, the integrity of the arts in U.S.S.R. has been heavily threatened. Many kinds of arts have disappeared and many people thought that due to the funding of government, the integrity of arts had been harmed. As a result, if the government extraordinarily funds the arts, the integrity of arts would be threatened.


To sum up, it is necessary to consider the topic whether government should fund the arts on a case-by-case basis. As the reasons mentioned above, some arty works were created without the funding of government. At the same time, proper funding would be good for the development of arts, but sometimes it would have negative effects.

木耳UID: 123036

写得有板有眼的，挺不错。

不过有个问题就是重点不够突出，论点不够鲜明。读完了感觉比较平淡。很多时候的情况是伤其十指不如断其一指，什么都先说的结果往往是什么都说不全，说不深入。

像你的第一主题段，我觉得就可写可不写。在文章中主要需要强调的是政府资助对艺术的正或者负的影响。把这段删掉，再好好把后面两段丰满一下我觉得会更好。

在第二主题段中除了强调社会环境的变化之外，艺术形式的变化也是可以关注的。比如说电影这样一种综合的和群体创作的艺术形式是以工业社会为基础的，相应的也会比传统的绘画，写作等等需要多得多的资金投入。比如前苏联的空前绝后的《战争与和平》，动用了数以十万计的军队，动用倾国之力耗时7年才最终拍成。没有政府的资助是绝对办不到的。

第三主题段虽然写到了前苏联的一些扼杀艺术自由的政府政策，但讲得过于笼统了。只是说有这么一回事，但具体这件事是什么，来龙去脉怎样去没讲。相应的给人的印象也就不深。

sniper613UID: 147372

谢谢木耳的评价，我就是找不出具体的例子来说苏联扼杀艺术，你有好的建议吗？

但是写ISSUE最好有三个分论点，虽然第一段可有可无，我觉得还是稍微说一下的好，你觉得呢？

木耳UID: 123036

不一定要有三个分论点啊，两个怎么不行呢？

sniper613UID: 147372

个人觉得两个不够丰满，三个显得内容要丰富些。只是个人观点啊

HamiltonUID: 156912

读完文章感觉不错
有几个小错误要指出：
When human beings came to the Earth, they also brought with arts. In different countries in the world, there are all kinds of arts, such as music, painting, poem, novelty, and so on. Artists usually need money and public support to create their arty works. Meanwhile, there is a debate whether arts need the government's funding between （改为among）different individuals. In the point of my opinion（这是词组吗？In my point of view 我觉得更好）, I hold the view （这里的VIEW 最好改掉）that it is necessary for arts to get the support from government's funding, but sometimes it would threaten the integrity of the arts.

In human's history, many famous arty works came to the world without any government's funding. In the Middle Age in Europe, so many artists accomplished their famous achievements without any funding from government. For example, Van Gogh, who was one of the great artists in our world, created many paintings. In Van Gogh's time, he did not get any funding from government even the support from public. But under this situation, he created a large number of works, such as the Sunflower, （逗号最好去掉，不然从句会被误认为修饰WORKS的）which is one of the expensive and famous paintings in our modern society. Beethoven is another example. His Symphony No.5 is popular in all corner （ corners）of the world, but he also did not get the funding of government. Therefore, without the funding of government, many artists also could create famous works.

In the modern society, especially in the market economy, government funding arts could benefit the creation of arts. In order to understand the gist of the statement, it is necessary to see an example. Singapore government always offers funding to the artists in the country. But the government never regulates the kinds of arts, which the artists have to create. As is known to all, the arts in Singapore are heath （healthy）and contain nearly all kinds of them. Meanwhile, in India, especially in the market economy, ordinary people do not like poems. If they （指的是诗吗？！）do not get the funding from the government, many poets would not write any poems in the future. So Indian government funds poets to keep working on creating poems. Thus, from the two instances mentioned above, it can be concluded that artists in the modern society usually need the funding from government.

However, if the government extraordinarily funds arts, it would harm the integrity of them. The typical instance is U.S.S.R. In （From）the 1950s to the 1990s, the U.S.S.R. government always funded the arts. In order to get the funding from the government, many artists in U.S.S.R. chose to create some arty works, which the government preferred to. After several decades' development, the integrity of the arts in U.S.S.R. has been heavily threatened. Many kinds of arts have disappeared and many people thought that due to the funding of government, the integrity of arts had been harmed. As a result, if the government extraordinarily funds the arts, the integrity of arts would be threatened.

最后一段写了可以：）

个人意见，希望考虑，朋友！

sniper613UID: 147372

谢谢 Hamilton的建议，这些问题我以后会注意的