- UID
- 865984
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2013-3-11
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
第三篇Issue。。没计时，一不小心没收住。。欢迎大牛小牛轻拍重拍！
Should governments fund for the arts ornot? This is usually how the question is raised. Proponents for governmentfunding may argue that the arts is fundamental to cultivate a person’screativity and aesthetic ability and that government funding is absolutelynecessary because enterprises or individuals seldom invest in the arts. On thecontrary, opponents may reject government funding for the arts by citingstatistics of how many people are still starving or unemployed. For me, bothsides have their grounds. So, it might be helpful to scrutinize specificcircumstances under which government should suspend funding for the arts beforemaking a one-side judgment.
Let’s suppose this is the case: the artsindustry in a certain country has almost matured, and meanwhile many people areshort of food or cannot find a job. Under this condition, it is quitereasonable for governments to suspend funding for the arts. After all, when thearts industry itself do not need so much funding to sustain its development,and the funding could be used to help people improve life standards or get employed,there is no reason for government not to spend its budget this way. For example,in countries like the U.S., the Great Britain, Japan or other western Europeancountries, their arts industry has already reached a high level that it cansupport itself for further development, government funding is not as necessaryas it used to be. In such cases, governments have good reasons to spend more onthe well being of the general public rather than on the arts field. Actually,it is likely that private funding for or business investment in the artsindustry is not uncommon in such countries, because the long-term developmentof the arts has proved itself to be a profitable industry. If this is true,then government funding is even more unnecessary.
Apart from the status quo of the arts, tofurther analyze the possible consequences of suspending government funding forthe arts, we also need to know what is regarded as the top priority of thesociety as a whole. If the public considers fields like education, health care,old age pensions, or unemployment funding as the top priority, then it might beadvantageous for governments to suspend funding for the arts. Otherwise,governments may lose its support from the mass population because people mayjust think governments are wasting money on something utterly useless. However,if the arts is not regarded as a low priority by the whole society and isrecognized as a fundamental way to develop a person’s creativity orimagination, then it may arouse objection from the public if governments stopfunding for the arts. In this sense, whether it is helpful or not to stopgovernment funding for the arts industry depends largely on the weight peoplehas put on it.
Now it seems that the consequence ofwithdrawing government funding for the arts is not an “half-half” thing, but itactually might be a disaster, when the arts as a creative industry fuels theeconomic development of the nation. For example, data have shown that the artsindustry has over 900,000 businesses and creates more than 3.3 million jobs inthe United States. Also, arts goods are an important export industry for thenation. As mentioned above, private funding may take the place of governmentfunding so that the arts industry can still progress. But what if governmentswithdraw its money while no private investment is put in it? After all, forenterprises, especially small firms, government funding serves a signal ofconfidence in the industry more than merely a financial support. Under this circumstance,withdrawal from governments may lead to a collapse of the arts and itsconsequence is devastating with so many people losing their jobs and so manybusinesses closing down. Eventually, the economy of the whole nation mightsuffer from this huge loss.
From the analysis above, now it might bereasonable to draw a conclusion that governments really should do some researchinto the arts industry before suspending its financial support for it. If theresults show it has more merits than demerits for governments to stop fundingfor the arts, then policymakers may just do so. However, if the results turnout to be the opposite, then governments should continue its spending on thiscreative industry. Whichever road the government takes, its ultimate goal isthe same in that it is for the well being of the whole society. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-3-16 13:19:28
收藏
收藏
