Issue22
Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced.
Art is becoming more and more important in our daily life. We watch art; we listen to art; we enjoy art. But when concerning the dilemma whether the government should be supportive of arts and at the same time impose no control over it, people always hold different views. In my view, the final judgment should depend on a case-by-case analysis.
To begin with, if public interests are involved in the arts, subsidizing the arts is a necessary job for the government. Such is the case with Peking Opera, which represents the top art in
On the other hand, when the art just refers to an individual behavior, it is no necessity of government to be the art patron. As a case in point, the tattoo art, contemporarily popular in the world, has little value and benefit to the public, thus having no requirement that our government makes great effort to patronize such kind of individual art. In short, such art as involving public interest and value should be supportive of our government.
In addition, if the arts can rarely make any profit, it is government that should play a crucial part as the arts subsidizer. There are still many artists living in poverty, resulting in the entire possibility that the art the artist deals with becomes extinct, which may cast a deep influence on our society’s culture in the future. Although some people may argue that the existence of the poor require government to devote more money to solving the poverty problem rather than to patronize the arts which can hardly save the poor out of hunger, still, government appropriate parts of funds for arts. It is no denial that some kinds of arts to some extent will produce large profits and benefits to our society. To be specific, the ticket revenue of the world-famous opera “CAT” amounts to billion, let alone its derivative product profit.
Last but not least, government, if necessary, should play an evenhanded part as arts patron, which means restricting artists expression may in some cases encroach upon the constitutional right of free expression. In some cases, government restriction may chill creativity, thereby defeating the very purpose of subsidizing the arts. And in the meantime, government’s over restriction will cause crowding-out effect, thereby graying the individual’s effort and activity.
In the final analysis, it is definitely responsible for our government to bolster the arts involving public benefit and high culture value, and meanwhile, government should help those artists who are in poverty to foster their art development. But considering the restriction over arts, government has to avoid the infringement of the free creation of arts.
Issue22
Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced.
Art is becoming more and more important in our daily life. We watch art; we listen to art; we enjoy art. But when concerning the dilemma whether the government should be supportive of arts and at the same time impose no control over it, people always hold different views. In my view, the final judgment should depend on a case-by-case analysis.
To begin with, if public interests are involved in the arts, subsidizing the arts is a necessary job for the government. Such is the case with Peking Opera, which represents the top art in
On the other hand, when the art just refers to an individual behavior, it is no necessity of government
用it is not necessary 是不是比较直接啊？
to be the art patron. As a case in point, the tattoo art, contemporarily popular in the world, has little value and benefit to the public, thus having no requirement that our government makes great effort to patronize such kind of individual art. In short, such art as involving public interest and value should be supportive of our government.
In addition, if the arts can rarely make any profit, it is government that should play a crucial part as the arts subsidizer. There are still many artists living in poverty, resulting in the entire possibility that the art the artist deals with becomes extinct, which may cast a deep influence on our society’s culture in the future. Although some people may argue that the existence of the poor require government to devote more money to solving the poverty problem rather than to patronize the arts which can hardly save the poor out of hunger, still, government appropriate parts of funds for arts. It is no denial that some kinds of arts to some extent will produce large profits and benefits to our society. To be specific, the ticket revenue of the world-famous opera “CAT” amounts to billion, let alone its derivative product profit.
Last but not least, government, if necessary, should play an evenhanded part as arts patron, which means restricting artists expression may in some cases encroach upon the constitutional right of free expression. In some cases, government restriction may chill creativity, thereby defeating the very purpose of subsidizing the arts. And in the meantime, government’s over restriction will cause crowding-out effect, thereby graying the individual’s effort and activity.
In the final analysis, it is definitely responsible for our government to bolster the arts involving public benefit and high culture value, and meanwhile, government should help those artists who are in poverty to foster their art development. But considering the restriction over arts, government has to avoid the infringement of the free creation of arts.
挺好的不要紧张。练练打字速度多看看模版和黄金80的提纲讨论没关系的拉。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |