- 最后登录
- 2008-1-10
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 308
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-3-19
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 267
- UID
- 201604

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 308
- 注册时间
- 2005-3-19
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
issue101 Governments should provide funding for artists so that the arts can flourish and be available to all people.
提纲:
position:政治家不应该赞助艺术
1.艺术灵感是来源于相对贫困的生活的, 过于富裕的生活抑制创作灵感
2. 政府对艺术的资助会使艺术变成对政治家歌功颂德的工具。
3.繁荣的艺术主要来源于政府对艺术少点限制
What should the government do to get the flourished art, which is the symbol of the society prosperity? Basically, I do not agree with the speaker's assertion that the government should provide funding for artists to make the arts flourish. Conversely, the mere financial support will never be helpful for the prosperity of the arts, and sometimes even prevent the development of the art.
To begin with, the artists' abundant material lives will not give the inspiration to them. The inspiration of the artist, which may be the most crucial precondition of the art creation, always comes from the careful conservation of the everyday live, and strong conflict between reality and ideal in the artists hear, or real and suffering experience of the creators, none of which can be caused by the lives in the high level. Instead, the artists always get inspired from the poor and uneven lives. For example, consider the famous artist in Holland Vincent van Gogh, who lives an extremely poor and suffering life and wholly depends on the mere funding from his brother Tiho. However from his creations we can clearly feel the impact from his painful life and the conflict caused by the reality in his heart. Or consider another famous writer Balzac, whose poor life make his familiarize with the common and poor citizens in France, and thus give his the very inspiration of his distinguished realist fiction Human Comedy. Without the poor and unbearable lives, maybe, we might lose some famous creation in the arts.
In the second place, the financial support of the government would easily make the arts as the political tools used to sing the praise of the government. Some of the artists, who have got the financial support from the government, would lose the acute observation to the common life of the individuals, and change to praise the government. For example, in contemporary China, to gain the praise of the government, some directors of the films excessively sing the praise song to the government, and lose the original condition of the film--to observe and reflect the true society. It is undeniable that these kinds of movie do have much value to maintain the peace of the society, but in the field of the art appreciation, they have no sense at all.
Finally, to flourish the art and make it available to all people, what the government should do is not to interfere with the freedom of the artist excessively. As the head of the art department in my university once said (and I paraphrase):"For the artist, the prevent power of their art creation is the too much restrict to there creative freedom rather than the poor and suffering life. To the extent that the creation of the artist is not harmful to the peace of the society, the political leaders should allow the artist to reflect the truth of the society, describe the real lives of the individuals in the society, and portray the very conflict in our hearts." Accordingly, the government should give the appropriate freedom to the artist.
In conclusion, the mere funding of the government can not solve the problem that how to make the art flourish and available to all o f people. To solve this problem, the government should put the freedom of the creation of the artist as the first priority.
[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-16 at 11:19 ] |
|