issue190 互改

ghost33UID: 2267869

TOPIC: ISSUE190 - "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
WORDS: 563          TIME: 0:46:52          DATE: 2007-8-4

In any society, materialistic prosperity is the basic needs. Art, as a relatively luxury enjoyment, should always be secondary to the fundamental needs such as food, employment and so on. Yet, we don't need to go so far that using money for art is cruel all the time.

To begin with, a stable society is the aim of all governments, thus, putting the basic needs in the first place is reasonable. When the whole society cannot provide enough food to its people, even the artists themselves are in no mood for pursuing mental pleasure. No matter how, an empty stomach asks for bread and milk, not a paint or a piece of music. If money is spent to support arts, not to buy more food for the people, or to create more opportunity for the public to get more food, when most of its people are under this basic level, such a government is doom to be turned over. History has witnessed a lot of cases when hungry people took up their arms and turn down a government. Thus, basic material needs should go first.

Another point is that affluent material is the basis of the art. In American history, when the country first established, all people got busy to get more job, more food, more money, there was hardly any native American art at that time. And one famous people put such a situation in a right way (and I paraphrase): We should accumulate more money and improve the living conditions as much as we could, so that our sons and daughters would have the opportunity to study art, philosophy, science and so on. Then when the new born America grew stronger and stronger, the people became unsatisfied about the European art, they created their own style. Till now, with affluent material basis, Americans affect fashion all over the world. Thus, people are always full of original ideas about art, the question is whether they have the time and energy to spend on it. With the development of the society, more free time is available. People can afford to enjoy the art, the needs and critics from them are great incentive for art.


However, there is no point to go to extreme that as long as there are people hungry, or out of work, or lack the basic skills needed to survive, we should not spare any money for art. For one thing, no matter how developed a society is, poverty is a constant social problem. Beggars can be found in every country and every city, some of which simply choose to beg in the street. For another, enjoying art does not need the most prosperous condition. People in ancient times, began to draw pictures, and take part in various ritual ceremonies, even their society was far away as developed as ours. What's more, art plays a vital part to address people's psyche needs, which emerges as long as people are satisfied with their material needs. When a society develops to certain state, most of its people asks for meeting their mental needs, again, it is time for the government to support art. Art teaches people moral lessons, cultivates people's mental abilities, and also helps a people to reach their own identity. Thus, art should be taken seriously in a society.

In sum, while art should stay behind the basic material needs, the government should not ignore its development as well.


越写越无语,让砖头来得狠一点吧

菲子UID: 2311527

TOPIC: ISSUE190 - "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."WORDS: 563          TIME: 0:46:52          DATE: 2007-8-4In any society, materialistic prosperity is the basic needs. Art, as a relatively luxury enjoyment, should always be secondary to the fundamental needs such as food, employment and so on. Yet, we don't need to go so far that using money for art is cruel all the time.To begin with, a stable society is the aim of all governments, thus, putting the basic needs in the first place is reasonable. When the whole society cannot provide enough food to its people, even the artists themselves are in no mood for pursuing mental pleasure（这句话其实就是第二段的观点了，放在这里是不是有点不太合适啊？）. No matter how, an empty stomach asks for bread and milk, not a paint or a piece of music. If money is spent to support（on supporting?） arts, not to buy more food for the people, or to create more opportunity for the public to get more food, when most of its people are under this basic level, such a government is doom to be turned over. History has witnessed a lot of cases when hungry people took up their arms and turn down a government. Thus, basic material needs should go first.Another point is that affluent material is the basis of the art. In American history, when the country first established, all people got busy to get more job, more food, more money, there was hardly any native American art at that time. And one famous people put such a situation in a right way (and I paraphrase): We should accumulate more money and improve the living conditions as much as we could, so that our sons and daughters would have the opportunity to study art, philosophy, science and so on. Then when the new born America grew stronger and stronger, the people became unsatisfied about the European art, they created their own style. Till now, with affluent material basis, Americans affect fashion all over the world. Thus, people are always full of original ideas about art(这个因果不知从何而来，上文没有直接说明人们总是有许多创新想法), the question is whether they have the time and energy to spend on it. With the development of the society, more free time is available. People can afford to enjoy the art, the needs and critics from them are great incentive for art.（这段话虽然讲了物质是艺术的基础，提到了物质的重要性，但是没有怎么涉及到政府资源的分配问题，不能说偏题，但是和题目的契合不太够。另外，对于美国的那个例子是不是太长了？可以把例子里面的一些话作为分析的，再把例子本身缩小一点，这样分配会不会更好。简单说说物质繁荣了，美国的文化艺术也随着繁荣了。再摆出分析，是人们更有力气和时间了，不满意欧洲艺术了，等等。个人意见。）However, there is no point to go to extreme that as long as there are people hungry, or out of work, or lack the basic skills needed to survive, we should not spare any money for art. For one thing, no matter how developed a society is, poverty is a constant social problem. Beggars can be found in every country and every city, some of which simply choose to beg in the street（这句话好像对于文章没有什么用处吧？）. For another, enjoying art does not need the most prosperous condition. People in ancient times, began to draw pictures, and take part in various ritual ceremonies, even their society was far away as developed as ours. What's more, art plays a vital part to address people's psyche needs, which emerges as long as people are satisfied with their material needs. When a society develops to certain state, most of its people ask for meeting their mental needs, again, it is time for the government to support art. Art teaches people moral lessons, cultivates people's mental abilities, and also helps a people to reach their own identity. Thus, art should be taken seriously in a society.In sum, while art should stay behind the basic material needs, the government should not ignore its development as well.