=dies in flames=Issue190 by archaeology

archaeologyUID: 2598252

190. "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.

When people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack basic skills to survive, should the public resources be used to support the arts? In other words, the fundamental material requirement or the spiritual pursuit, which is more important? The author claims that it is inappropriate and even cruel to ensure of development of arts while somebody’s lives couldn’t be ensured. I agree with him very much.


At the beginning, the fundament material requirement is more essential than the spiritual pursuit. Arts, the embodiment or outcome of spiritual pursuit, pleasure us, express us and make our life richer. Admittedly, we benefit a lot from arts. But it seems that all the advantages of arts appear when a person needn’t worry about his survival and has time enjoying them. For example, a sculptor’s works---a series of sculpture about food, will not solve the beggar’s hungry. When the beggar don’t care where to eat the next meal any more, they may talk arts.

Moreover, the nature of arts is to extol human’s life. Neither government nor rich should the arts service for, but the life. It is ironically that artists talk about their new works accomplished with large funds sponsored by foundations in the gallery, while some people was suffering from hungry and poverty outside. We can read such facts in our historical books that the emperor and his ministers sponsored lots artists and criticized their works in the court, no matter how many people wandered along the street and even starved in their country. It is the same that we support arts in spite of people suffering from many difficulties what threaten their lives.

To say the least, even though the arts are more important, it is not certainly helpful for arts to support them by public resources. At first, the independence of arts will be affected. More or less, the artists have to speak for their sponsors in order to gratitude them, and that may be reflected in their works. Even badly, some sponsors will impact on the artists by virtue of their profits. The prices of their works will be discounted to the extent. Second, we think the fund supports to arts can solve the artists’ survival problems and make them more concentrate on arts composing, but in fact, it may act on the contrary. For example, some artists often complain that they must explain to public how they use the sponsoring money with evidences at the request of taxpayers or governments. If we have sufficient money, it should be used to solve the fundamental social problems such as hungry, poverty, violence and so forth.


In sum, we shouldn’t pay amounts of money on arts while still many people are on the edge of survival.

Alex_2009UID: 2616286

我来了 马上帮你改

archaeologyUID: 2598252

好长时间没写，发现啥都不会了，来改的亲们狠狠地批，不用跟我客气。

archaeologyUID: 2598252

红色句子第一处，我觉得你说的对，wouldn't care for 改成needn't worry about更合适。
关于第二段与第一段相似的问题。我当时的提纲是这样的，第一论证段：首先，基本生存需要比艺术追求更重要；第二论证段：而且，艺术的本质应该是颂扬生命，追求艺术创作而不去管一些人的死活岂不是很讽刺？ 经你点评才发现确实是有些像，因为都涉及到了生存生命这个问题，如果我的第一论证段从其他角度论证，而不从生命这个角度说，应该会好些。
最后举的例子，我应该再补充发展一下，点明艺术家向人们证明资助金的用途已经影响到了他们日常创作。如果写不好的话，我就换个例子。

你的意见很中肯。

Alex_2009UID: 2616286

190. "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.

When people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack basic skills to survive, should the public resources be used to support the arts? In other words, the fundamental material requirement or the spiritual pursuit, which is more important? The author claims that it is inappropriate and even cruel to ensure of development of arts while somebody’s lives couldn’t be ensured. I agree with him very much.
（我觉得这里的确可以概括为物质需求和精神追求之间的的问题，但是我觉得，艺术，除了是一种精神追求和享受，它也是一个市场，可以产生投资回报，另外每一个地方的艺术都有其独特的文化背景，发展艺术市场，即使促进经济发展从而支援public resources，也是一种民族文化的宣传语保护）

At the beginning, the fundament material requirement is more essential than the spiritual pursuit.（TS）Arts, the embodiment or outcome of spiritual pursuit, pleasure us, express us and make our life richer.（这个定义很不错） Admittedly, we benefit a lot from arts. But it seems that all the advantages of arts appear when a person needn’t worry about his survival and has time （and mood）enjoying them. For example, a sculptor’s works---a series of sculpture about food, will not solve the beggar’s hungry. When the beggar don’t care where to eat the next meal any more, they may talk arts.(这个例子虽然没有显得不合适，但是还可以更好，因为这个例子最终是为TS服务的，这个并没有很好的突出TS，我的感觉是art works will not serve the beggar’s hungry并不能说明什么，art works的价值是肯定有的，这样来引出物质的必要性是否妥呢，如果换一下，比如说在一个乞丐很饿升值濒临死亡的时候，他渴望的什么。。。。。blabla…)
（还有最后少了一句收尾的句子。）

Moreover, the nature of arts is to extol(这个词用的有点偏颇，艺术来源于生活又高于生活，并不总是赞扬) human’s life. Neither government nor rich should the arts service for, but the life. It is ironically that artists talk about their new works accomplished with large funds sponsored by foundations in the gallery（这个貌似就直接一点比较好public resources ）, while some people was suffering from hungry and poverty outside. We can read such facts in our historical books that the emperor and his ministers sponsored lots artists and criticized their works in the court, no matter how many people wandered along the street and even starved in their country. It is the same that we support arts in spite of people suffering from many difficulties what threaten their lives.（这里写的貌似有点一边倒。。还需要分析深一点。。举个例子，难道只要天下还有难民，皇帝和大臣就不能欣赏艺术了吗，就应该天天忙着解决难民的事吗？难道就应该把所有的精力花到这上面来吗？其他事都不用干了？我想不是这样吧）
To say the least（至少可以这样说，退一步讲。不错，学习了）, even though the arts are more important, it is not certainly（uncertain） helpful for arts to support them by public resources. At first, the independence of arts will be affected. More or less, the artists have to speak for their sponsors in order to gratitude them, and that may be reflected in their works. Even badly, some sponsors will impact on the artists by virtue of their profits. The prices of their works will be discounted to the extent. Second, we think the fund supports to arts can solve the artists’ survival problems and make them more concentrate on arts composing, but in fact, it may act on the contrary. For example, some artists often complain that they must explain to public how they use the sponsoring money with evidences at the request of taxpayers or governments. （这个例子用了是为了说明什么呢，“艺术家抱怨”这个为了说明什么？）If we have sufficient money, it should be used to solve the fundamental social problems such as hungry, poverty, violence and so forth.（这一句紧接着例子后面用sufficient这个词貌似用的不是很妥）


In sum, we shouldn’t pay amounts of money on arts while（since） still many people are on the edge of survival. (最好提出个balance allocation 会比较好)

建议：中间段落每段最后别忘了收尾，还有例子用的时候，要紧扣TS，三句TS单独拿出来要逻辑顺畅。

对了 robben 你的文章虽然用词不算华丽 但是结构还是很清楚的 这个很重要 语言也不错 加油！