〓DIES IN FLAMS〓 Issue190 by cjlu

cjluUID: 2448066

    For an individual, life can be separated into two parts:” first, maintain one’s life; and then, live a better life. But when it comes to the successive administrations, things became complex. It shouldn’t be the choice to give up arts when people in the society meets some difficulties like hunger, unemployment or lack the basic skills needed to survive. Arts shouldn’t be the sacrifice when a government trying to mediate the contradiction between people basic needs and the shortage of funds for it could help the society in another way rather than just compromise out of consideration.
    We should admit that arts couldn’t play a notable role to the urgent situation when a country reaches a crisis for you couldn’t feel full when you go to a concert; feel content when you kill a day in an art exhibition and you even haven't get a job; and it’s also impossible for most people to follow and vote for a designer game when they even can’t find an efficient way to earn money by themselves. At that time many people will question the government: why do you put money on these fields even when we can’t live?
It became a tragedy when they begin to ask this question for the reason that at that moment no one is willing to introspect what made the social difficulties but just focus on the “misuse” of money. The factors which lead to the difficulties like hunger, unemployment or lack the basic skills needed to survive are various, such as overpopulation, nature calamity, education mistakes, the bottleneck period of social development or even the abuse of public resources by the administrators, and we should see the fact that none of them which caused the social crisis could be solved just by supply less supports to the arts. It’s true that we can use the money which invested on the arts to do lots things to help the people solve the questions they face up to in the short period, we can distribute money to them to help them buy some food, drinks and even clothes, we can create some idle positions for them to draw their “salary” and what’s more, it is possible for them to be feed even they did nothing at all. With a sum of money, none of these is impossible. One person is saved, then, what about ten people, a thousand people, a million people and even a trillion people? What will happen when the money which was used on the arts use up? When the short period the sum of money can afford passed, what will happen for the government which believed that they have completely solved the problems and for the folks who thought everything has gone back to the correct path? To cheat themselves and the masses is not what a qualified government should do. It may bring steady in a short period, but from a long term point of view it will result in a bigger confusion. If we consider the situation carefully, we can find that instead of using public resources to support arts, diverting the fund earmarked for arts is exactly the inappropriate behavior which cures the symptoms, not the disease.
    Moreover, the question is based on a concept that art is useless when people face up to the reality and so it’s an unalterable principle to give up arts when it made a conflict with the reality. We can hardly agree with it for arts always influent the society in a profounder level with an imperceptible way. Arts is not a metaphysical luxuries which is not indispensable, especially in the contemporary era. First, the arts have already been an industrial which can push forward the society just as other trades. It can drive the development of the market and supply more job opportunities. Compared with diverting the fund earmarked for arts, supporting the arts field is not only a way to change the structure of public resources but actually the way to add capital, which will satisfied the folks’ needs from the root and make the people’s life better in fact though slow. Second, the arts can help the people find the strength from their own hearts. We can’t ignore the possibility that it’s the government’s direct help that make the folks lose the basic ability to survive. When a person used to waiting for help, he is becoming inability. The good arts will help them go out from the dilemma and trying to find a better life by themselves. To teach them to fish rather than give them fish is what the government should do.
    It’s not enough for a human just exists on the planet, to live by themselves, persuade their own happiness is actually the way a man should live. If a government can’t find ways to provide the environment for their folks to live as a man but just give them money to let them survive in the world, it’s, doubtless, the cruelest crime they did for their people. Arts, which seems useless, is the only feasible way to wake up their hearts which sunk in sleep.
    It’s never the best way to fill a piece of blank by diverting another piece, and the consequence is obvious that the blank will never be covered. Using the money which ought to support the arts will do little good but more harm to the society, which actually is not the way to solve the problems but delay them. The arts is not the thing that cannot solve any practical problems, as an industry it can make visible contribution the society, and the more important is that just as the way is always in a person’s heart, to wake the heart is wake all. The belief in arts is not inappropriate and not cruel at all.