Issue85 [认真作文互改小组－f_ding第二次作业之选做题]求拍！

f_dingUID: 2283047

ISSUE85 - "Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts."


Does government funding of the arts threaten the integrity of the arts, as the speaker claims? Although, I concede that government funding is essential for ensuring the development of arts, yet I tend to disagree with the speaker's assertion for the reasons listed below.

Admittedly, government funding is indispensable to rendering artists concentrating on their creative work. According to anthropologists and sociologists, spiritual satisfaction comes true only after people are materially satisfied; otherwise people incline to pay much of their attention to the obtaining of material necessities in order to survive. So it’s quite understandable that artists who are like people from other fields are in need of financial help so that they can survive in this highly competitive world. It's no hard for us to imagine the scenario in which an artist is not met with the basic living requirements, let alone he focuses on the creating process. In this condition, artists are badly distracted from the normal process which needs, more often that not, free and absorbing minds to guarantee the inherent nature of art- creative and imaginative.

However, one compelling reason why I am not in accord with the assertion involves the politicization and bureaucratization during the process of government funding. Generally speaking, government funds only those artists whose artistic works are highly in line with the political standpoints currently prevalent in dominating administration. Moreover, for the artists whose works do not conform to government viewpoints, they will sacrifice their own styles and personalities to the popular political points of view so that they will not be deprived of the rights of gaining government funding. In other extreme cases, some artists are forced to create works that convey government attitudes and comply with government policies. For supporting example one need look no further than Soviet Union which tried every possible way to make its artists follow the party line and by the artistic works it propaganda its political purpose. In these cases, the arts created will never be the arts that bear aestheticsensation or personal values, therefore, there is no denying that art is doomed to lose its integrity in this situation, for art has evolved into a tool by which government reflects its own political viewpoints and achieve its political purpose.

In addition, consider the true purpose of art and its internal properties, artists should be left to be funded by communities, entrepreneurs or even individuals. Arts are created to serve the interests of the averages, so whether some arts are valuable or not is to a great extent up to those who appreciate and understand the arts. In other words, these people can help to decide the value of arts. Suppose the arts are acceptable and considered as worthwhile to be funded by most people, then these arts may be funded privately. Besides, leaving the arts to be assessed and funded by the average can help directly and positively the artists create their works in a realm that is filled without distraction and with freedom, only in this way can a art be created with significance and maintained the integrity.

In sum, on one hand while government funding is necessary in some sense, we must take care to ensure that art should not be manipulated for the purpose of political purpose so that art in itself will keep its artistic functions. On the other hand, we'd better leave arts to be decided by us ordinary people whether it is worthy of being funded. If arts are accepted valuable, they can certainly get funding from private organizations or individuals. In the final analysis, I fundamentally agree with the speaker's contention.


[ 本帖最后由 f_ding 于 2006-12-30 17:01 编辑 ]

LVeronicaUID: 2286465

fd 偶太崇拜你了你写得真快啊等我赶快把我的写完了就给你看啊你不要着急

LVeronicaUID: 2286465

Does government funding of the arts threaten the integrity of the arts, as the speaker claims? Although, I concede that government funding is essential for ensuring the development of arts, yet I tend to disagree with the speaker's assertion for the reasons listed below.
开头这段很简洁

Admittedly, government funding is indispensable to rendering （render）artists concentrating on their creative work. According to anthropologists and sociologists, spiritual satisfaction comes true only after people are materially satisfied; otherwise people incline to pay much of their attention to the obtaining of material necessities in order to survive. So it’s （我的缩写都被人改了难道不能用缩写？）quite understandable that artists who are like people from other fields are in need of financial help so that they can survive in this highly competitive world. It's no hard for us to imagine the scenario in which an artist is not met with the basic living requirements, let alone he focuses on the creating process. In this condition, artists are badly distracted from the normal process which needs, more often that not, free and absorbing minds to guarantee the inherent nature of art- creative and imaginative.

However, one compelling reason why I am not in accord with the assertion involves the politicization and bureaucratization during the process of government funding. Generally speaking, government funds only those artists whose artistic works are highly in line with the political standpoints currently prevalent in dominating administration. Moreover, for the artists whose works do not conform to government viewpoints, they will sacrifice their own styles and personalities to the popular political points of view so that they will not be deprived of the rights of gaining government funding. In other extreme cases, some artists are forced to create works that convey government attitudes and comply with government policies. For supporting example one need look no further than Soviet Union which tried every possible way to make its artists follow the party line and by the artistic works it propaganda （propagandized）its political purpose. In these cases, the arts created will never be the arts that bear aestheticsensation or personal values, therefore, there is no denying that art is doomed to lose its integrity in this situation, for art has evolved into a tool by which government reflects its own political viewpoints and achieve (achieves)its political purpose.

In addition, consider the true purpose of art and its internal properties, artists should be left to be funded by communities, entrepreneurs or even individuals. Arts are created to serve the interests of the averages, so whether some arts are valuable or not is to a great extent up to those who appreciate and understand the arts.(好像有语病吧) In other words, these people can help to decide the value of arts. Suppose the arts are acceptable and considered as worthwhile to be funded by most people, then these arts may be funded privately. Besides, leaving the arts to be assessed and funded by the average can help directly and positively the artists create their works in a realm that is filled without distraction and with freedom, only in this way can a （删了）art be created with significance and maintained （maintain）the integrity.

In sum, on one hand while government funding is necessary in some sense, we must take care to ensure that art should not be manipulated for the purpose of political purpose so that art in itself will keep its artistic functions. On the other hand, we'd better leave arts to be decided by us ordinary people whether it is worthy of being funded. If arts are accepted valuable, they can certainly get funding from private organizations or individuals. In the final analysis, I fundamentally agree with the speaker's contention.

（不错，把你的观点很好的表达出来了）