ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2866|回复: 10
打印 上一主题 下一主题

这个题目都不太懂?请教大家

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-4-1 12:33:24 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
22. “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.”

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Develop your position by giving specific reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2011-4-1 15:16:14 | 只看该作者
自己顶一下,希望有人帮忙
板凳
发表于 2011-4-1 16:05:51 | 只看该作者
疑问是在这句话吧, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced
地板
 楼主| 发表于 2011-4-1 16:22:14 | 只看该作者
准确说,这一整句都不太明白However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced

楼上的请指教!谢谢!
5#
发表于 2011-4-1 16:49:49 | 只看该作者
很明显,政府对支持艺术富有责任。但是,如果需要这个支持产生任何价值,政府必须对产生的艺术不加限制
6#
发表于 2011-4-1 16:52:52 | 只看该作者
但是,如果需要这个支持产生任何价值,政府必须对产生的艺术不加限制 ,求解释
7#
发表于 2011-4-1 17:03:02 | 只看该作者
应该是对产生价值的艺术作品不加限制吧
8#
发表于 2011-4-1 17:05:34 | 只看该作者
贡献范文一篇,搜来的
The speaker argues that government must support the arts but at the same time impose no control over what art is produced. The implicit rationale for government intervention in the arts is that, without it, cultural decline and erosion of our social fabric will result. However, I find no empirical evidence to support this argument, which in any event is unconvincing in light of more persuasive arguments that government should play no part in either supporting or restricting the arts.

First, subsidizing the arts is neither a proper nor necessary job for government. Although public health is generally viewed as critical to a society's very survival and therefore an appropriate concern of government, this concern should not extend tenuously to our cultural "health" or well-being. A lack of private funding might justify an exception: in my observation; however, philanthropy is alive and well today, especially among the new technology and media moguls.

Second, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as arts patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions; priorities, and choices, it is unconscionable to relegate normative decisions as to which art has "value" to a few legislators and jurists, who may be unenlightened in their notions about art. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of those lobbyists with the most money and influence.

hird, restricting artistic expression may in some cases encroach upon the constitutional right of free expression. In any case, governmental restriction may chill creativity, thereby defeating the very purpose of subsidizing the arts.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically or economically justify its involvement in the arts, either by subsidy or sanction. Responsibility lies with individuals to determine what art has value and to support that art.
9#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-4-1 17:17:07 | 只看该作者
太感谢楼上了,可是范文依旧很晦涩,看不懂,估计是老外写的。
这个issue题目的逻辑还是不知道该怎么理解?
10#
发表于 2011-4-1 17:38:19 | 只看该作者
我感觉意思就是 如果这种支持有结果了,产生价值了,挣钱了,政府别眼红
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-25 02:38
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部