0910G_Issue 243

pirate_007UID: 2626667

写了5篇ISSUE后文章，其他高手指教！！！
TOPIC: ISSUE243 - "The true value of a civilization is reflected in its artistic creations rather than in its scientific accomplishments."

Is it true that the value of a civilization is only reflected in its artistic creations, rather than in its scientific accomplishments? Though I accede that artistic creation is a quite significant index of human civilization, I think scientific accomplishments are even not more, at least equally represent the value of civilization.

The development of civilization can't do without science and technology. Let's consider the civilization in our human history. When talking about the old Chinese civilization, the first things emerged before our eyes are the four great inventions of paper making, gunpowder, printing and compass and the Great Wall, all of which demonstrate the scientific accomplishments of old China and are the symbols of the old Chinese civilizations. When talking about the Egypt civilization, the Pyramids will emerge in our minds firstly, which demonstrates the achievements in architectures of Egypt. Moreover, it’s the level of scientific accomplishments which a civilization belongs to, that eventually determines destine of civilization. The reason why western civilization dominates in our present world is its overwhelming accomplishments in science and technology compared to other civilization in the past several centuries, especially after the Industrial Revolutionary, which darks the glory of other civilizations.


In fact, modern science and technology have already become the symbol of western civilization. When asking about the impression of western civilization, most Chinese people would first tell you the high-tech products --Coca Cola, Nike, Apples, Nokia, Toyota, and then some would tell you Mona Lisa, Picasso, Beethoven and Shakespeare. In fact, in modern world, science and technology are more like a ID Card that represent civilization than artistic creations.

Another reason why I oppose to the speaker's statement is that the speaker neglects the function of science during the development of arts. History informs us that science is the foundation of arts. Without scientific development in agriculture, no spare food would be provided to artists to concentrate themselves on artistic creation; without technological advances, there would be no colorants for painters to depict the beautiful scenery, no euphonious instruments would be made for musicals; without scientific development in architecture and physics, there would be no advanced building materials and we human can't build up many gorgeous artistic building. Without invention of papers, the artistic skills and theory can't be passed down. Therefore, scientific developments build a solid foundation for arts.

Finally, scientific development also helps to generate new forms of arts. Take music an example. As the technology developments in electronics, many electronical instruments are invented, accompanying which comes many new genre of music -- heavy metal, punk and so on. Architecture is another good case. On the basis of modern technological achievements, modern people, compare to the ancestors, are more free to create masterpieces of architecture.

In sum, scientific accomplishments not only represent the value of civilization, but also contribute to the development of arts.
Without the scientific development, arts would go nowhere.