issue101 51互助小组第 by ruczephyr

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

题目：ISSUE101 - "Governments should provide funding for artists so that the arts can flourish and be available to all people."
字数：697          用时：00:45:00          日期：2007-7-12 15:03:14

Even in the era of fast development of art, many artists are also leading simply lives. So there raises a question whether the government should allocate part of its budget to patronize the development of art or not . Concerning this issue, I am prone to claim that though the prosperity needs assistance from the government, the government should not fund for the artists, for the potential negative influence that political minds have on the art.

To begin with, we have to acknowledge that in order to further promote the development of art, the government should offer assistance to extinguish obstacles for art, rather than directly patronize the artists. As common sense, artists express their deep minds through the art work, while such works might not be understood and further accepted by the public.  Without proper help from the government, the difficulty of mutual understanding and communication between the artists and the public would seriously undermine the progress of art. And at this moment, the government has the duty to directly publicize to the citizens the merits of art or hire artistic critic to reveal the value of great art works. Benefited from the assistance of the government, art forms no matter modern or classic are able to grow freely and prosperously.

Yet, that is not to say the government should directly fund the artists as well. The immediate patronization from government would harm the free development of art on the contrary. In the first place, the really brilliants artists do not need such fund to promote their work. Generally accepted that famous arts works such as paintings worthy a lot more than the imagination of the public, and there are also great amounts of rich individuals prefer collecting works by famous artists. And these artists, who are always the leaders in their fields , do not have financial trouble as a result. Or even though many of such artists passed away years ago, the sales of their works can still benefit the museums which collected these art works, for instance, many paintings by Van Gogh, Monet, or Picasso can sell millions of dollars. Then the museum could fund the progress of the art or fund the young artist to encourage them to explore in the fields of art to make great achievement as their ancestors. In a word, the art has the ability to develop on their own without direct financial help from the government.

What is more, financial support by the government will inevitably add some political element in the development of art, and further make the art as political tools. Naturally, those artists who are funded by the government will appreciate the help from the government, and they will be blind at finding defects of the government , such as improper ways of governing the country, bad economical development or poor performance in world wide political activities. When creating art works, they might contain too much personal preference toward the government to objectively reflect the truth. Under this circumstance, the art no longer has their effect of revealing. Additional, even the artists are still able to hold their position as before, if asked by the government to make some impartial comments about the society, such as overdue praise of the government's work, the artists will have no choice but to obey the mind of their patronizers. In consequence, direct fund by the government would seriously trouble the artists to objective express their minds through art works.

In addition, with a limited financial budget, the government should meet the needs of other fields of more importance in the country first before considering to fund the artists. That is because these fields, including industry, agriculture, and so forth, have close relationship with the survive for the public, while, to some extent, art only provides kinds of entertainment. Thus, in the countries ,especially those which are not economical developed, their governments should feed their citizens first rather than give fund to the artists. Simply put without stable lives, no one would enjoy arts.

In brief, to make the arts flourish and available to the public , the government should offer assistance to promote the development of arts, but it should not give financial support directly to the artists.

ymngUID: 181378

Van Gogh的例子不当；
Naturally, those artists who are funded by the government will appreciate the help from the government, and they will be blind at finding defects of the government
:)
verbose
while, to some extent, art only provides kinds of entertainment?
这中说法是错误的，艺术不过是娱乐？to my great surprise!
...
it should not 这种这么强烈的主观意见...

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

楼上给我改的。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。