当有公民为饥饿和失业所困时，政府需要中止对艺术的资助。
老题库190. "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."
一旦人们陷于饥饿、失业或者缺乏谋生的基本技能，运用公共资源去扶持艺术是很不恰当的----并且甚至是残忍的----尤其明知这些资金所有可能的用途。
1. The implicit rationale behind the speaker's statement seems to be that cultural enrichment pales in importance compared to food, clothing, and shelter.
2. It might also be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that arts patronage is neither an appropriate nor a necessary function of government.
3. On the other hand are compelling arguments that public support for the art is desirable, whether or not unemployment and hunger have been eliminated. One such argument is that by allocating public resources to the arts, we actually help
4. A second argument against the speaker's position has to do with the function and ultimate objectives of art.
Begin：承认要政府应该适度的选择去支持艺术的发展，但是我们也要明白上面提高的一些社会问题是永远不会彻底消失的，我们不能完全不去支持艺术。
1． 承认政府必须把一些公共资源着重于解决那些紧急的社会问题。 如果国内发生了重大的自然灾害，比如洪水，成千上万的人流离失所，比如发生饥荒，很多人都没有饭吃，国内经济通货膨胀那样，如果在这种场合下，还想着花很大的精力支持艺术的发展，是违背政府的主要职责的，这种场合下，设及很多人的生命，很有可能社会发生巨大动乱，甚至这个国家维持下去都是很困难的。
2． 但是我们要明白艺术也是需要支持。因为艺术的发展没有很强的市场规律，并不是所有有天赋的艺术家都能赢得与天赋相关的舒适生活，甚至正常生活都有问题，但是他们能为社会创造永恒的价值。比如 Samuel Johnson 为了写作那本著名的 a dictionary of the English language ，四处乞求经济支持，最后被很多人拒绝了，特别是Lord chesterfield ,最后他多花了比预计的时间多了5年的时间完成了。但是如果他能够得到适当的支持，那么完成时间可以大大缩短。有时候，必要的经济支持，会给艺术的发展带来巨大的推力，因此也能对整个人类文明也是有巨大作用的。
3． 有时艺术也可以帮助解决社会问题。第一：艺术作品可以给人精神动力，比如革命时期的一些鼓舞人心的歌曲、小说。第二：艺术也可以帮助那些饥饿、失业或者缺乏谋生的基本技能的人，比如通过慈善晚会号召大家捐款等等，SARS时期、地震时都会有这样的活动。
End：最后，我们要明白社会问题和艺术都很重要，我们要优先把资源用来解决紧急的社会问题，但是社会问题永远是不会消失，不能为了无止境的社会问题，忽视了对人类有长远意义的艺术的支持。
范文：
The speaker asserts that using public resources to support the arts is unjustifiable in a society where some people go without food, jobs, and basic survival skills. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that art is not a fundamental human need, and that government is not entirely trustworthy when it comes to its motives and methods. However, the speaker overlooks certain economic and other societal benefits that accrue when government assumes an active role in supporting the arts.
The implicit rationale behind the speaker's statement seems to be that cultural enrichment pales in importance compared to food, clothing, and shelter. That the latter needs are more fundamental is indisputable; after all, what starving person would prefer a good painting to even a bad meal? Accordingly, I concede that when it comes to the use of public resources it is entirely appropriate to assign a lower priority to the arts than to these other pressing social problems. Yet, to postpone public arts funding until we completely eliminate unemployment and hunger would be to postpone arts funding forever; any informed person who believes otherwise is envisioning a pure socialist state where the government provides for all of its citizens' needs--a vision which amounts to fantasy.
It might also be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that arts patronage is neither an appropriate nor a necessary funcuon of government. This argument has considerable merit, in three respects. First, it seems ill-conceived to relegate decision and choices about arts funding to a handful of bureaucrats, who are likely to decide based on their own quirky notions about art, and whose decisions might be susceptible to influence-peddling. Second, private charity and philanthropy appear to be alive and well today. For example, year after year the Public Broadcasting System is able to survive, and even thrive, on donations from private foundations and individuals. Third, government funding requires tax dollars from our pockets--leaving us with less disposable dollars with which to support the arts directly and more efficiently than any bureaucracy ever could.
On the other hand are two compelling arguments that public support for the arts is desirable, whether or not unemployment and hunger have been eliminated. One such argument is that by allocating public resources to the arts we actually help to solve these social problems. Consider Canada's film industry, which is heavily subsidized by the Canadian government, and which provides countless jobs for film-industry workers as a result. The Canadian government also provides various incentives for American productoion companies to f~n and produce their movies in Canada. These incentives have sparked a boon for the Canadian economy, thereby sumulating job growth and wealth that can be applied toward education, job training, and social programs. The Canadian example is proof that public arts support can help solve the kinds of social problems with which the speaker is concerned.
A second argument against the speaker's position has to do with the function and ultimate objectives of art. Art serves to lift the human spirit and to put us more in touch with our feelings, foibles, and fate in short, with our own humanity. With a heightened sensitivity to the human condition, we become more others-oriented, less self-centered, more giving of ourselves. In other words, we become a more charitable society--more willing to give to those less fortunate than ourselves in the ways with which the speaker is concerned. The speaker might argue, of course, that we do a disservice to others when we lend a helping hand by enabling them to depend on us to survive. However, at the heart of this specious argument lies a certain coldness and lack of compassion that, in my view, any society should seek to discourage. Besides, the argument leads inexorably to certain political, philosophical, and moral issues that this brief essay cannot begin to address.
In the final analysis, the beneficiaries of public arts funding are not limited to the elitists who stroll through big-city museums and attend symphonies and gallery openings, as the speaker might have us believe. Public resources allocated to the arts create jobs for artists and others whose livelihood depends on a vibrant, rich culture--just the sort of culture that breeds charitable concern for the hungry, the helpless, and the hapless.
Orignal From: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed
没有评论:
发表评论