Issue190 寄托4人组 8-24

bridgewalkerUID：208595

Issue190: 494 words  45 minutes
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.
------------------------------------------
Is it inappropriate or even cruel using public resources to support arts when members of a society suffer from hunger, unemployment and absence of education opportunity? The speaker believes so. However, as far as I am concerned, I concede that keeping citizens away from lack of necessities and jobs is paramount, however, people's survival and support of arts are not mutually exclusive, and public resources are not indispensable for prosperity of arts.

To begin with, fundamentally speaking, the first priority of governments is to ensure citizens' survival. If most members in a society do not have enough food, shelter, job and the like, they might protest the government and finally put it down via revolution. At the individual level, a hunger man is more likely to prefer a bad meal to a famous painting such as Mona Lisa. In the shadow of hunger and worry of basic sustenance, individuals would have no interests in appreciating arts. Under such circumstance, if governments still use already insufficient funds to support arts rather than the public well-being, it is absolutely unwise to do so.

However, public benefits and thriving of arts are not mutually exclusive. If combined in a proper way, there would be a win-win result. For example, the present Chinese government has subsidized millions of RMB to patron its movie industry. As it turns out, large amount of jobs have been created; movie-related industries such as designing, entertainments, mass media, etc., have been stimulated. Consequently, additional profits have been generated and the quality of people's life has really increased to some extent. In short, although support of arts might compete with other fund-needing issues facing governments, it is quite possible for these governments to kill two birds with one stone by subsidizing art industry.

In addition, from practical point of view, governmental financial supports are not indispensable in the 21st century for the survival and flourish of arts. Nowadays, individuals, private foundations and business companies make great efforts to support our arts. Art museum such as Getty Art museum has opened to public; donations from ordinary people are common in most art galleries; besides federal financial supports such as the National Endowment for the Arts, private foundations like Carnegie and Rockefeller support arts consistently. Facing these facts, it might be reasonable to address that public support in the charge of governments is not as important as the speaker thought. Other resources gradually outweigh their public counterparts.

In the final analysis, it is irrefutable that food, shelter, living skills and stable incomes are vital to people’s daily living in comparison with arts. However, these fundamental considerations do not mutually exclusive with arts. If dispose appropriately, governments can meet citizens’ basic physical needs at one hand and support arts at another hand. Even if governments have to abandon support for arts when facing sever financial deficit and serious social problems, the arts can also survive and even thrive with supports from individuals, private foundations and companies, etc.

tangjihedeUID：2107695

zhan!

tangjihedeUID：2107695

Issue190: 494 words  45 minutes
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.
------------------------------------------
Is it inappropriate or even cruel using public resources to support arts when members of a society suffer from hunger, unemployment and absence of education opportunity? The speaker believes so. However, as far as I am concerned, I concede that keeping citizens away from lack of necessities and jobs is paramount, however,[两个了。。] people's survival and support of arts are not mutually exclusive, and [public resources are not indispensable for prosperity of arts.走题？？？]

To begin with, fundamentally speaking, the first priority of governments is to ensure citizens' survival. If most members in a society do not have enough food, shelter, job and the like, they might protest the government and finally put it down via revolution. At the individual level, a hunger[hungry]  man[person]  is more likely to prefer a bad meal to a famous painting such as Mona Lisa. In the shadow of hunger and worry of basic sustenance, individuals would have no interests in appreciating arts. [嗯，可以用需求层次说。] Under such circumstance, if governments still use already insufficient funds to support arts rather than the public well-being, it is absolutely unwise [to do so/delete].

However, public benefits and thriving of arts are not mutually exclusive. If combined in a proper way, there would be a win-win result. For example, the present Chinese government has subsidized millions of RMB to patron its movie industry. As it turns out, large amount of jobs have been created[good point!]; movie-related industries such as designing, entertainments, mass media, etc., have been stimulated. Consequently, additional profits have been generated and the quality of people's life has really increased to some extent. In short, although support of arts might compete with other fund-needing issues facing governments, it is quite possible for these governments to kill two birds with one stone by subsidizing art industry. [是不是可以分的更清楚：粮食上艺术无法取代；但在工作机会和工作技能上两者并不冲突？]

In addition, from practical point of view, governmental financial supports are not indispensable in the 21st century for the survival and flourish of arts. Nowadays, individuals, private foundations and business companies make great efforts to support our arts. Art museum such as Getty Art museum[Museum]  has opened to public; donations from ordinary people are common in most art galleries; besides federal financial supports such as the National Endowment for the Arts, private foundations like Carnegie and Rockefeller support arts consistently. [例子全是280里政府该不该支持艺术的那个issue吧？？换个人吧Ford？]  Facing these facts, it might be reasonable to address that public support in the charge of governments is not as important as the speaker thought. Other resources gradually outweigh their public counterparts.[我觉得这段走题了。我理解原题的意思是说在基本需要还没满足的情况下，政府（或公共机构）把钱投入到艺术上是残忍的，言下之意是优先解决基本需求，并没有说艺术没了政府支持就不行了的意思。所以谈不上艺术的其他财政来源。针对你的这一段，原作者会说即使基金会有钱，也应该先救济灾民。你的第二点非常好，可以进一步展开一下。还可以加入艺术对人们在困难时期的鼓舞作用，因而适当的投入可以收到最好的效果。]

In the final analysis, it is irrefutable that food, shelter, living skills and stable incomes are vital to people’s daily living in comparison with arts. However, these fundamental considerations do not mutually exclusive with arts. If dispose appropriately, governments can meet citizens’ basic physical needs at one hand and support arts at another hand. Even if governments have to abandon support for arts when facing sever financial deficit and serious social problems, the arts can also survive and even thrive with supports from individuals, private foundations and companies, etc.

bridgewalkerUID：208595

我也感觉有点走，主要是想不出B3说什么了。

最近老是走题！汗！~

语言那么次+走题，怕怕！

tangjihedeUID：2107695

不过B2的思路真的非常好！受益匪浅：）