issue 7 求点评

dedede1

     Is government funding of the arts a good thing or a bad thing? As far as I am concerned, government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people and it probably will not threaten the integrity of the arts.
     As we all know, learning a kind of art is expensive. For example, if you want to play guitar, you need to buy a guitar and that will costs hundreds dollars. If you want to learn painting, you need to buy pigments and go to classes and that will also costs hundreds dollars or even more. Such amount of money will be a great burden for a poor family. If there is no government funding of the arts, poor children may not able to learn arts and we may, as a result, lose a genius and a future master of art. Everyone should have a chance to learn what they want and in order to make a chance to learn art available to poor children, government should fund arts. What’s more, it is not only about whether a poor child should entitle a chance to learn art, but it is about equity. It is about everyone was born equal and everyone should have the same right to persue their own happiness. As a government, it should try their best to maintain this principle from being damaged.
     Nowadays, a lot of artists live on government funding, for example teachers in school, musicians in their communities. They bring arts and happiness to people through playing music or drawing pictures. It is because of government funding can they survive and lead a decent life and it is because of these artists, arts can be available to all people. If arts can be available to people and can be familiar with people, then government has promoted social well fare because arts make people’s life happier and better.
     However, will government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts? I hardly think so. It is like church can not stop people knowing earth is not the center of universe, government funding can hardly threats the integrity of the arts. There are a lot of ways to do arts and not every artist survived by government funding. Artist can express their feeling in a small group and disseminate secretly, they can chose not to publish their work but discuss their work with peers without being known by government. And it is not uncommon that there are some outstanding artists who get paid not by government. Singer jay chou is a super star in China and his audiences are willing to pay thousands RMB to listen his music. Great painter’s drawing can be sold for millions dollars. These are the artist who can maintain the integrity of arts because they do not live on government funding and they can make money by their own.
    To sum up, I think government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people because it is also about social equity and social well fare. At the same time, because there are a lot of ways to do arts and some outstanding artist who can make money by their own, government funding can hardly threatens the integrity of the arts.
560words
求点评，谢谢啦。。。

竹林中人

我觉得LZ最好能够对政府资助的坏处做一个小的让步，你提到艺术家可以选择不公开演出或者公开发表，这其实本身多少还是影响了艺术的完整性，毕竟大多数人还是通过常规方式接受艺术，这样他们接收到的就是有保留的艺术，因而是不完整的。