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.
“很明顯，政府對支持藝術(shù)富有責任。但是，如果需要這個支持產(chǎn)生任何價值，政府必須對產(chǎn)生的藝術(shù)不加限制?！?BR> 1. 政府對藝術(shù)富有責任這一論斷是毫無根據(jù)的。事實上政府應(yīng)該把更多的精力投入到公共產(chǎn)品以及具有外部性的產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)與建設(shè)上。因為由經(jīng)濟學(xué)的理論我們知道這些產(chǎn)品是非競爭非排他的，因此無法由私人部門提供。這也正是需要政府存在的理由。而藝術(shù)顯然是可以在私人部門解決的。私人收藏和私人裝飾都為藝術(shù)品提供了廣闊的市場，藝術(shù)品顯然不是公共產(chǎn)品。但是由于藝術(shù)品可能具有的外部性，如個人收藏可以讓擁有者以外的人賞心悅目，所以政府對藝術(shù)進行適當?shù)姆鲋彩菓?yīng)當?shù)摹５f政府對藝術(shù)負有責任，這顯然是言過其實。
2. 對于需要政府加以扶植的藝術(shù)例如公益性質(zhì)的藝術(shù)展覽等，政府是需要對其加以限制的。政府的只能就是使社會的總收益。如果加以限制可以使其扶持的藝術(shù)行為為社會帶來更大的收益限制就是必要的。有人可能會反駁說這會對藝術(shù)的自由創(chuàng)作帶來負面的影響，但事實上絕對的自由是不存在的，適當?shù)南拗剖菍ψ杂傻谋Ｕ?。例如有?行為藝術(shù)，就應(yīng)由政府出面限制觀看的人群年齡，實際上這并不會影響藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作。
unwarranted baseless groudless bottomless foundationless gratuitous groundless 私人產(chǎn)品private goods 公共產(chǎn)品public goods 外部性externality 非競爭non-rivalry 非排他non-excludability 競爭rivalry 排他excludability 理論 私人部門private sector 公共部門public sector收藏collection
扶植prop up 扶持support uphold 言過其實paint the devil blacker than he is 為公益的commonweal-oriented 限制constrain confine 負面影響negative impact 正面影響positive impact 絕對的absolute
保障guarantee safeguard *naked
1， 藝術(shù)的巨大作用毋庸置疑：強調(diào)the perpetua永久的l virtue, such as bravery, affection, responsibility, honesty and so forth. The Lord of the rings; 同時，remind people of the intrinsic demerits stemmed from the dark side of humanity, such as aggression and greed. Shakespeare’s Macbeth instruct people that the insatiable貪得無厭 ambition is pernicious. 藝術(shù)應(yīng)該受到支持，以便蓬勃發(fā)展。
2， 但是不能說政府應(yīng)該扮演這個角色。首先，藝術(shù)需要自由的表達，而政府的資助一定在某種程度上限制這種自由。比如The government of Soviet Union, forced all the arts it subsidized to follow the “party line” and squashed those artists who resisted such control. 即使在democratic countries, such control is hidden and indirect, but still exist.
3， 其次，政府有更多的職責，需要有限的資源去處理。比如很多社會問題非常嚴重，environment, criminality, education, starvation… it is not a wise decision for the government to allocate the limited resources on arts while ignoring the more urgent demand cited above.
4， 鑒于以上兩點，應(yīng)該把藝術(shù)的扶持工作交給大眾。事實上，現(xiàn)在的很多公益機構(gòu)charitarian are doing an excellent job in supporting the prosperity of arts.
Optional words:
Government/ the authorities
Art/artist
Support/finance/ patronize/ loan/ sustain/ pledge
Thesis sentence:
The inevitable representation of human civilization, art must be count in the responsibilities that government carries. But support without restrictions will probably lead to fruitless.
View1: government should support art
Evidence: because arts have very important functions in our civilization. for example:
Paintings arouse imagination
Music heal broken heart and purify dirty minds
View2: unselected supporting of arts will probably lead to fruitless
Evidence: Some radical forms of arts go beyond the acceptance of the masses and contradict our social moral. for example: posters features blood and violence
The speaker here 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 a 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 (無節(jié)制的；過度的) to relegate normative (conforming to or based on norms *normative behavior* *normative judgments*) decisions as to which art has “value” to a few legislators and jurists (法學(xué)家；法理學(xué)家: one having a thorough knowledge of law; especially: JUDGE), 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.
Third, 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.
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.
“很明顯，政府對支持藝術(shù)富有責任。但是，如果需要這個支持產(chǎn)生任何價值，政府必須對產(chǎn)生的藝術(shù)不加限制?！?BR> 1. 政府對藝術(shù)富有責任這一論斷是毫無根據(jù)的。事實上政府應(yīng)該把更多的精力投入到公共產(chǎn)品以及具有外部性的產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)與建設(shè)上。因為由經(jīng)濟學(xué)的理論我們知道這些產(chǎn)品是非競爭非排他的，因此無法由私人部門提供。這也正是需要政府存在的理由。而藝術(shù)顯然是可以在私人部門解決的。私人收藏和私人裝飾都為藝術(shù)品提供了廣闊的市場，藝術(shù)品顯然不是公共產(chǎn)品。但是由于藝術(shù)品可能具有的外部性，如個人收藏可以讓擁有者以外的人賞心悅目，所以政府對藝術(shù)進行適當?shù)姆鲋彩菓?yīng)當?shù)摹５f政府對藝術(shù)負有責任，這顯然是言過其實。
2. 對于需要政府加以扶植的藝術(shù)例如公益性質(zhì)的藝術(shù)展覽等，政府是需要對其加以限制的。政府的只能就是使社會的總收益。如果加以限制可以使其扶持的藝術(shù)行為為社會帶來更大的收益限制就是必要的。有人可能會反駁說這會對藝術(shù)的自由創(chuàng)作帶來負面的影響，但事實上絕對的自由是不存在的，適當?shù)南拗剖菍ψ杂傻谋Ｕ?。例如有?行為藝術(shù)，就應(yīng)由政府出面限制觀看的人群年齡，實際上這并不會影響藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作。
unwarranted baseless groudless bottomless foundationless gratuitous groundless 私人產(chǎn)品private goods 公共產(chǎn)品public goods 外部性externality 非競爭non-rivalry 非排他non-excludability 競爭rivalry 排他excludability 理論 私人部門private sector 公共部門public sector收藏collection
扶植prop up 扶持support uphold 言過其實paint the devil blacker than he is 為公益的commonweal-oriented 限制constrain confine 負面影響negative impact 正面影響positive impact 絕對的absolute
保障guarantee safeguard *naked
1， 藝術(shù)的巨大作用毋庸置疑：強調(diào)the perpetua永久的l virtue, such as bravery, affection, responsibility, honesty and so forth. The Lord of the rings; 同時，remind people of the intrinsic demerits stemmed from the dark side of humanity, such as aggression and greed. Shakespeare’s Macbeth instruct people that the insatiable貪得無厭 ambition is pernicious. 藝術(shù)應(yīng)該受到支持，以便蓬勃發(fā)展。
2， 但是不能說政府應(yīng)該扮演這個角色。首先，藝術(shù)需要自由的表達，而政府的資助一定在某種程度上限制這種自由。比如The government of Soviet Union, forced all the arts it subsidized to follow the “party line” and squashed those artists who resisted such control. 即使在democratic countries, such control is hidden and indirect, but still exist.
3， 其次，政府有更多的職責，需要有限的資源去處理。比如很多社會問題非常嚴重，environment, criminality, education, starvation… it is not a wise decision for the government to allocate the limited resources on arts while ignoring the more urgent demand cited above.
4， 鑒于以上兩點，應(yīng)該把藝術(shù)的扶持工作交給大眾。事實上，現(xiàn)在的很多公益機構(gòu)charitarian are doing an excellent job in supporting the prosperity of arts.
Optional words:
Government/ the authorities
Art/artist
Support/finance/ patronize/ loan/ sustain/ pledge
Thesis sentence:
The inevitable representation of human civilization, art must be count in the responsibilities that government carries. But support without restrictions will probably lead to fruitless.
View1: government should support art
Evidence: because arts have very important functions in our civilization. for example:
Paintings arouse imagination
Music heal broken heart and purify dirty minds
View2: unselected supporting of arts will probably lead to fruitless
Evidence: Some radical forms of arts go beyond the acceptance of the masses and contradict our social moral. for example: posters features blood and violence
The speaker here 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 a 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 (無節(jié)制的；過度的) to relegate normative (conforming to or based on norms *normative behavior* *normative judgments*) decisions as to which art has “value” to a few legislators and jurists (法學(xué)家；法理學(xué)家: one having a thorough knowledge of law; especially: JUDGE), 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.
Third, 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.