Issue85 艺术类 我的第一篇 请指教! 必回拍!!!

tottiUID: 184291

我的第一篇issue, 就选择了艺术~,本来感觉自己还满擅长写艺术,可写起来真郁闷! 有些个别单词不会写查了词典 :)
大家先提点意见吧, 有些分析和例证还得以后慢慢想慢慢加.

2005年2月16日星期三  9:30-11:10 提纲20min 写100min   650字   
85"Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts." 85． 政府对艺术的资助威胁着艺术的完整性

Position: Partial agree
1. Due to arts' function it is necessary to support and government funding of arts can play an important role in supporting the arts  
2. However, the Government funding of the arts may threaten the integrity of the arts.
3. The private charity and philanthropy are also alive and well today.
4. It is necessary to combine arts patronage of government and private foundations and keep balance between them.

Does the government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts? It is maybe worried that government would merely support the mainstream of the arts and make use of it for themselves not for public. While this assertion has it merit, I think it unfairly generalizes about important role for the government funding in supporting the arts and the correlation between the two.

As it known to all, the arts play an important role in the history of human being from hominid to present modern society. It serves to lift the human spirit and to put us more in touch with our feeling and fate, in short, with our own humanity. Although the arts enrichment pales in importance compares to food, clothing and house, the latter are more fundamental in our life, the government paid more attention on the arts all the time in history. It goes without saying that the aulic artists produced masterpiece for the governments and more kinds of architecture building all over the world by Government funding. Government funding of the arts can make us have the opportunities to go into the museum, attend gallery openings, even have a talk with the famous artists. It is clearly that the speaker overlooks certain economic and other societal benefits that accrue when government assumes an active role in supporting the arts.  

Admittedly, it is necessary for us to take into account that whether the integrity of the arts will be threatened due to government funding or not. Art patronage is neither an appropriate nor a necessary function of the government. Why did the government spare no effort in supporting the arts? On the one hand, it seems ill-conceived to relegate decision and choices about arts funding to a handful of bureaucrats, who are likely to use it merely support the mainstream of the arts. For example, which kind of genre is suitable for the dominator to enthrall the public, it will gain more fund even regarded as the article symbol in that era. On the other hand, without the support and attention, other artists will be slammed the door. For instance, Raphael, one of the famous painters of the Renaissance period, once was invited by the government to draw the fresco on a famous church. Because of his paint style that all the people in the fresco were nude, the government became in a rage and believed it offend the God, and then ask other painters to draw clothes for them. In short, if the arts' function is only served to government, it is possible that the integrity of the art is threatened.

However, we could not ignore the private charity and philanthropy is also alive and well today. With the development of society, more and more private foundation and individuals provide funding for artists which can bring social effect for them. Instead of giving the tax to government to support the arts, the private funding for arts is more directly and efficiently than any bureaucracy ever could. For example, such as Abramovich in Russia, Sony in Japan and Baoli in China, they all have their own arts museum in or outside their companies. Also a lot of artists have the enough money and opportunities to show their own style in modern times.

In the final analysis, Art is not only for the noble but is for public even the people who only struggle for eat and wear. It is necessary to combine arts patronage of government and private foundations and keep balance between them. The Government funding must be full used for establishing and forming an art atmosphere for the public such as building museum and theatre, encouraging artists to produce good works for our era. While the private foundations are a useful supplements that create jobs for artists and show different tastes on arts. Do more effort both of them above, it will benefit for all the artists and make the arts more integrated.

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

先占座了，呵呵

naiba369UID: 131655

占座

呵呵，改谁的文章，要在MSN,QQ上加我呢，呵呵

tottiUID: 184291

最初由 naiba369 发布
[B]占座

呵呵，改谁的文章，要在MSN,QQ上加我呢，呵呵 [/B]

好好~帮我改改,俺加你, 也帮着看看你的大作 ;)

naiba369UID: 131655

Does the government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts? It is maybe worried that government would merely support the mainstream of the arts and make use of it for themselves not for public.这里说的还是每到最终要的点子上，最怕政府控制艺术来控制意识形态，想纳粹当时的文化策略就是那样，对人们意识的控制才是题目中“threat”担忧之关键。后面看到你B2也提到了。但要说明白，不要只说mainstream，要把那曾纸捅破了 While this assertion has it merit, I think it unfairly generalizes about important role for the government funding in supporting the arts and the correlation between the two.

As it known to all, the arts play an important role in the history of human being from hominid to present modern society. It serves to lift the human spirit and to put us more in touch with our feeling and fate, in short, with our own humanity. Although the arts enrichment pales in importance compares to food, clothing and house, the latter are more fundamental in our life, the government paid more attention on the arts all the time in history. It goes without saying that the aulic artists produced masterpiece for the governments and more kinds of architecture building all over the world by Government funding. Government funding of the arts can make us have the opportunities to go into the museum, attend gallery openings, even have a talk with the famous artists. It is clearly that the speaker overlooks certain economic and other societal benefits that accrue when government assumes an active role in supporting the arts.1。 这一段，你本来要将government的资助是必要的，看是你没有写到点子上―――说艺术对人类的终极体现是让人类追求没，而对“美”的渴望是人类文明的一个很显著特征，此外艺术也具有教育、开发心智。。。所以政府的资助是很必要的。而你绕了一圈，结果没有走到需要讨论的核心里去。2。基本就没有举例，后面的叙述只能认为是一种理论叙述，要注意。

Admittedly, it is necessary for us to take into account that whether the integrity of the arts will be threatened due to government funding or not. Art patronage is neither an appropriate nor a necessary function of the government. Why did the government spare no effort in supporting the arts? On the one hand, it seems ill-conceived to relegate decision and choices about arts funding to a handful of bureaucrats, who are likely to use it merely support the mainstream of the arts. For example, which kind of genre is suitable for the dominator to enthrall the public, it will gain more fund even regarded as the article symbol in that era. On the other hand, without the support and attention, other artists will be slammed the door. For instance, Raphael, one of the famous painters of the Renaissance period, once was invited by the government to draw the fresco on a famous church. Because of his paint style that all the people in the fresco were nude, the government became in a rage and believed it offend the God, and then ask other painters to draw clothes for them. In short, if the arts' function is only served to government, it is possible that the integrity of the art is threatened. 不错，这种结构很好，有举例，有分析

However, we could not ignore the private charity and philanthropy is also alive and well today. With the development of society, more and more private foundation and individuals provide funding for artists which can bring social effect for them. Instead of giving the tax to government to support the arts, the private funding for arts is more directly and efficiently than any bureaucracy ever could. For example, such as Abramovich in Russia, Sony in Japan and Baoli in China, they all have their own arts museum in or outside their companies. Also a lot of artists have the enough money and opportunities to show their own style in modern times.这一段的表述一改修改一下。这样说：由于政府资助的影响性，我们如果还要保持艺术的完整与独立那就要有另外的途径，而个人资助就是一个很好的方式。然后。。。你再说。思维逻辑就很连贯，不想你的是“断的”

In the final analysis, Art is not only for the noble but is for public even the people who only struggle for eat and wear. It is necessary to combine arts patronage of government and private foundations and keep balance between them. The Government funding must be full used for establishing and forming an art atmosphere for the public such as building museum and theatre, encouraging artists to produce good works for our era. While the private foundations are a useful supplements that create jobs for artists and show different tastes on arts. Do more effort both of them above, it will benefit for all the artists and make the arts more integrated

naiba369UID: 131655

我cancel了，你也不用看了

就把我的算到那些新手上吧，呵呵，AW版的传统可是－－－“爱护新人”呢，呵呵

naiba369UID: 131655

呵呵，忽然发现原来是“乡党”

呵呵，过年好

tottiUID: 184291

最初由 naiba369 发布
[B]我cancel了，你也不用看了

就把我的算到那些新手上吧，呵呵，AW版的传统可是－－－“爱护新人”呢，呵呵 [/B]

??
不明白呀

非常感谢你的指点:) 许多都一针见血.
我在好好努力~

既然是乡党那更要互相帮助啦~

龙非UID: 193190

恕我直言，题目讲的是“政府资助威胁艺术的完整性”，那么对它的response应该是
1）是，威胁了，接下来论述为什么会威胁，怎样威胁
2）不，并没有威胁，接下来论述怎么就不威胁了
3）呵呵，有时候威胁，有时候不威胁，接下来论述什么时候威胁，什么时候不威胁
不管怎样，都应该紧扣“威胁”来作文章。
但是从你的提纲来看，论述的是“应该要结合政府资助和私人资助”，显然不妥，题目又没有说不要私人资助：）。

zzfalconUID: 175235

第一段可以举过去例子，关于穷困的艺术家
完整性可以说说政府在fund 以后的省查会影响。
有POOH版主的关于这方面的介绍你可以看看。
好像是她的百宝箱。

legendhfwangUID: 191674

It is maybe worried that government would merely support the mainstream of the arts and make use of it for themselves not for public.   改成 rather than public
Art is not only for the noble but is for public even the people who only struggle for eat and wear.
改成 Art is not only for the noble but for public even  including those who only struggle for eat and wear.
It is necessary to combine arts patronage of government and private foundations and keep balance between them. 着一句不是很好
Do more effort both of them above 改成Doing more effort both of them above毕竟不是祈使句