issue85 V6站队 7.31

zehuaUID??199246

题目：Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Does government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts? In my view, it depends on which kind of art to sponsor. In addition, government has the responsibility to lead the trend of the arts to be mentally healthy.

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that government funding of a certain genre would break the balance of all arts, and threatens the integrity. Art, as the language for recording the hidden ideas and impulses of a society, and exploration of the souls within, needs an atmosphere of freedom to thrive. That is to say, arts could only record the real feelings and thoughts of people without outer interference. With government funding, certain genres receiving the subsidies would prosper and excessively affect the social mood in a society, breaking the balance of all arts. This will inevitably threaten the integrity of the arts, and even hamper art advancement, if not properly funded. In the 1920's, Soviet government not only attempted to control the process and goals of arts, but also distort the outcome of it, to serve the interest of the majority. As a result, there was no significant art advancement during that period at all, and arts degraded to the tools of propaganda.

However, government funding could also save the integrity of the arts, if used properly. Without government funding, the arts grow or extinct with their own rhythm, following the cultural trend and nature principles. Therefore certain kinds of arts, which are valuable to the nation as the culture heredities and symbolisms of a people, would possibly die out in modern society. Obviously, government should make every effort to save such arts by proper and sufficient funding, because funding from other resources are generally inadequate and is often intended for personal interests. Chinese government spent over one million RMB each year to protect the Dunhuang fresco and offer positions for scholars to study and preserve it. If the government did not act in this way, such precious art would have disappeared completely and irreversibly. Therefore, only government has the ability to save the rare and priceless arts for integrity by proper funding.

Even if government funding of the arts threatens and breaks the integrity of the arts, this is sometimes accepted and favored. Government, empowered by its citizens to protect them, is responsible to maintain the stability of a society, by legal usage of censorship. Certainly, some arts with the themes of race discrimination and segregation should be banned since they would lead to disorder of the society. In addition, the so called “art” fulfilled with pornography or violence is harmful to children and may result in increase of youth crime rates. Should government fund such "arts" in order to keep its integrity? Obviously not. Considering in the aspect of societal stabilization, order and security, we should not blame the government, even if its funding threatens the integrity of arts, as long as its usage is legal and appropriate.

In the final analysis, the speaker's statement is partly true. Government funding would threaten the integrity of the arts, if not used properly. However, such kind of funding could keep the integrity instead of breaking it, if the money is used for protection of the rare arts becoming extinct. Moreover, it is meaningless to save the harmful arts leading to disorder of a society, just for the vague purpose of keeping arts integrity.

dinddind2003UID??196353

交给我了

dinddind2003UID??196353

issue85 V6站队 7.31

题目：Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Does government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts? In my view, it depends on which kind of art to sponsor[（没懂sponsor这个词怎么用，感觉挺边扭的）]. In addition, government has the responsibility to lead the trend of the arts to be mentally healthy. [（题目是要说政府投资是否影响了艺术的完整性，你却说政府投资要把艺术投资引到健康的方向，和完整没多大关系吧）]

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that government funding of a certain genre would break the balance of all arts, and threatens the integrity.[（可以提议下why government fund a certain genre more than the others）] Art, as the language for recording the hidden ideas and impulses of a society[(是ISSUE 216的题目吧，呵呵)], and exploration of the souls within[（souls within是什么意思阿）], needs an atmosphere of freedom to thrive. That is to say, arts could only record the real feelings and thoughts of people without outer interference. With government funding, certain genres receiving[（received）] the subsidies would prosper and excessively affect the social mood in a society[(in a society 多余了吧) ], breaking the balance of all arts.[（这一句和上面一句没有联系吧，前面在说艺术需要一个没有干扰的环境来表达真实的意思，按理解后面应说政府介入使真实意思不能表达，而不是直接说是某种艺术繁荣了）] This will inevitably threaten the integrity of the arts, and even hamper art advancement, if not properly funded. In the 1920's, Soviet government not only attempted to control the process and goals of arts, but also distort the outcome of it, to serve the interest of the majority. As a result, there was no significant art advancement during that period at all, and arts degraded to the tools of propaganda[（degraded to the tools of propaganda是什么意思？）].[（觉得本段应该说政府扭曲了艺术的真实性，所以那句使某种艺术繁荣可以删了吧）]

However, government funding could also save the integrity of the arts, if used properly. Without government funding, the arts grow or extinct with their own rhythm, following the cultural trend and nature principles. Therefore certain kinds of arts[(哪些阿，举几个名字好吗)], which are valuable to the nation as the culture heredities and symbolisms of a people, would possibly die out in modern society. Obviously, government should make every[（虽然后面有话，还觉得绝对，把even删了吧）] effort to save such arts by proper and sufficient funding, because funding from other resources are generally inadequate and is often intended for personal interests. Chinese government spent over one million RMB each year to protect the Dunhuang fresco and offer positions for scholars to study and preserve it. If the government did not act in this way, such precious art would have disappeared completely and irreversibly. Therefore, only government has the ability to save the rare and priceless arts for integrity by proper funding[（本段并没有说只有政府有这个实力，所以可以说政府是主要力量）].

[（Furthermore）]Even if government funding of the arts threatens and breaks the integrity of the arts, this is sometimes accepted and favored. Government, empowered by its citizens to protect them, is responsible to maintain the stability of a society, by legal usage of censorship. Certainly, some arts with the themes of race discrimination and segregation should be banned since they would lead to disorder of the society. In addition, the so called “art” fulfilled with pornography or violence is harmful to children and may result in increase of youth crime rates. Should government fund such "arts" in order to keep its integrity? Obviously not. Considering in the aspect of societal stabilization, order and security, we should not blame the government, even if its funding threatens the integrity of arts, as long as its usage is legal and appropriate.[(这段在讲破坏完整性有时是有用的？如果是好像和上段主题矛盾，上段还说要是合理利用是不会破坏的，那么这段中有用的破坏就是不合理的了？矛盾了吧？我理解的对吗？)]

In the final analysis, the speaker's statement is partly true. Government funding would threaten the integrity of the arts, if not used properly. However, such kind of funding could keep the integrity instead of breaking it, if the money is used for protection of the rare arts becoming extinct. Moreover, it is meaningless to save the harmful arts leading to disorder of a society, just for the vague purpose of keeping arts integrity[（按照你的定义，似乎开始应该对艺术的完整性給予定义，不然总觉得你的论点有些矛盾，一会说不破坏一会又说破坏了（虽然你说了vague purpose of keeping arts integrity））].

dinddind2003UID??196353

错了，忘了改颜色了，看下面改了颜色的吧，呵呵

dinddind2003UID??196353

issue85 V6站队 7.31

题目：Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Does government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts? In my view, it depends on which kind of art to sponsor（没懂sponsor这个词怎么用，感觉挺边扭的）. In addition, government has the responsibility to lead the trend of the arts to be mentally healthy. （题目是要说政府投资是否影响了艺术的完整性，你却说政府投资要把艺术投资引到健康的方向，和完整没多大关系吧）

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that government funding of a certain genre would break the balance of all arts, and threatens the integrity.（可以提议下why government fund a certain genre more than the others） Art, as the language for recording the hidden ideas and impulses of a society(是ISSUE 216的题目吧，呵呵), and exploration of the souls within（souls within是什么意思阿）, needs an atmosphere of freedom to thrive. That is to say, arts could only record the real feelings and thoughts of people without outer interference. With government funding, certain genres receiving（received） the subsidies would prosper and excessively affect the social mood in a society(in a society 多余了吧) , breaking the balance of all arts.（这一句和上面一句没有联系吧，前面在说艺术需要一个没有干扰的环境来表达真实的意思，按理解后面应说政府介入使真实意思不能表达，而不是直接说是某种艺术繁荣了） This will inevitably threaten the integrity of the arts, and even hamper art advancement, if not properly funded. In the 1920's, Soviet government not only attempted to control the process and goals of arts, but also distort the outcome of it, to serve the interest of the majority. As a result, there was no significant art advancement during that period at all, and arts degraded to the tools of propaganda（degraded to the tools of propaganda是什么意思？）.（觉得本段应该说政府扭曲了艺术的真实性，所以那句使某种艺术繁荣可以删了吧）

However, government funding could also save the integrity of the arts, if used properly. Without government funding, the arts grow or extinct with their own rhythm, following the cultural trend and nature principles. Therefore certain kinds of arts(哪些阿，举几个名字好吗), which are valuable to the nation as the culture heredities and symbolisms of a people, would possibly die out in modern society. Obviously, government should make every（虽然后面有话，还觉得绝对，把even删了吧） effort to save such arts by proper and sufficient funding, because funding from other resources are generally inadequate and is often intended for personal interests. Chinese government spent over one million RMB each year to protect the Dunhuang fresco and offer positions for scholars to study and preserve it. If the government did not act in this way, such precious art would have disappeared completely and irreversibly. Therefore, only government has the ability to save the rare and priceless arts for integrity by proper funding（本段并没有说只有政府有这个实力，所以可以说政府是主要力量）.

（Furthermore）Even if government funding of the arts threatens and breaks the integrity of the arts, this is sometimes accepted and favored. Government, empowered by its citizens to protect them, is responsible to maintain the stability of a society, by legal usage of censorship. Certainly, some arts with the themes of race discrimination and segregation should be banned since they would lead to disorder of the society. In addition, the so called “art” fulfilled with pornography or violence is harmful to children and may result in increase of youth crime rates. Should government fund such "arts" in order to keep its integrity? Obviously not. Considering in the aspect of societal stabilization, order and security, we should not blame the government, even if its funding threatens the integrity of arts, as long as its usage is legal and appropriate.(这段在讲破坏完整性有时是有用的？如果是好像和上段主题矛盾，上段还说要是合理利用是不会破坏的，那么这段中有用的破坏就是不合理的了？矛盾了吧？我理解的对吗？)

In the final analysis, the speaker's statement is partly true. Government funding would threaten the integrity of the arts, if not used properly. However, such kind of funding could keep the integrity instead of breaking it, if the money is used for protection of the rare arts becoming extinct. Moreover, it is meaningless to save the harmful arts leading to disorder of a society, just for the vague purpose of keeping arts integrity（按照你的定义，似乎开始应该对艺术的完整性給予定义，不然总觉得你的论点有些矛盾，一会说不破坏一会又说破坏了（虽然你说了vague purpose of keeping arts integrity））.