- UID
- 791842
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-8-9
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
7.31独立作文:The government should not give any financial support to artists (musician, filmmaker, painter...)
Hardly in this world can anyone approve that art can progress with isolation. Artists, no matter which respect(field) they excel in and how talented they might be, need platforms and equipments to show their brilliance. Only in this way can artists enhance the overall cultural values and appreciations of the whole nation. However, the responsibility of investing on(invest in) art has been added blindly to the government. We should analyze the(this) issue in balance.
Artists invariably reach a point where they can hardly make any progress due to the monetary restrictions. To be more specific, a photographer has to buy a high end( high-tech) camera if eager to make a perfect work and an appropriate violin is necessary to a distinguished violinist as well. Likewise, displays and concerts have to be arranged to fulfill the basic needs of painters and musicians. In short, artists require these equipments and platforms to be recognized and acclaimed. (读着别扭,但又改不出来错误撒。)Yet few of them have the ability to achieve that by themselves. In this case, financial limitations confine their creativity and inspiration, which are among the most important factors in developing their potentials. Therefore, financial support is of paramount importance to the artists.(同学,我认为艺术家需要发展自身,但受到经济的限制,并不是政府就应该向其投资的条件。)
Admittedly, government can provide mighty and strong oriented support(没看明白) which can hardly be accomplished by individuals or private organizations. And art, in turn, can provide inspiration, lift human spirit, and incite the whole country’s creativity and imagination, benefiting its citizens. However, it is not the government’s obligation to invest on art. Government is an administrative body responsible to the whole nation. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities and choices. There are, I’m afraid, better ways that the legislators can utilize the funds. To put it exactly, government could build fundamental infrastructures and amenities, uplift the education of all and create jobs for the unemployed, all of which can visually improve the quality of residents’ lives.(没看明白,这段为什么要让步,也没看明白,这段的段落主旨是什么。)
Furthermore, nor is the private sector without its ability to support art. As a matter of fact, art has always been depended on the patronage of individuals and private businesses. Back to the time of Renaissance, distinguished painters such as Michelangelo and Raphael were frequently supported by the aristocracy. Besides, private organizations can collect the avenues of concerts and displays, where the government’s intervention and assistance is unnecessary.( 因为艺术可以得到其他方面的经济支持,政府就不支持了?我觉得理由有些牵强)
In sum, although artists should definitely be given strong support, it is private individuals and businesses that should do the job, not the government, since investing on art is neither its proper role nor its necessary character.
总体意见:
我个人觉得你写得有点偏题了。我个人的理解是:艺术家需不需要政府支持,并不是艺术家缺不缺钱,这不是重点。重点是:艺术家能给社会做出多少贡献,如果艺术家对社会影响大,贡献多,政府当然要支持了。如果艺术对社会发展没什么作用,政府不支持也是理所当然的。
逻辑:不够清晰。三个主体段,让人看不清是个什么关系。
论证:没有具体的例子进行支撑。举举个人例子,弄个调查研究什么的。让论证丰富起来。
语言:感觉很从地方读着从语法上看没什么问题,但感觉不是很地道。
以上个人意见,我也是在不断摸索中。共同进步哈!!!多多讨论。
|
|