gre写作宝典:GRE作文范文大全(47)
108
The speaker asserts that using public resources to support the arts is unjustifiable in a
society where some people go without food, jobs, and basic survival skills. It might be tempting
to agree with the speaker on the basis that art is not a fundamental human need, and that
government is not entirely trustworthy when it comes to its motives and methods. However, the
speaker overlooks certain economic and other societal benefits that accrue when government
assumes an active role in supporting the arts.
The implicit rationale behind the speaker's statement seems to be that cultural enrichment
pales in importance compared to food, clothing, and shelter. That the latter needs are more
fundamental is indisputable; after all, what starving person would prefer a good painting to
even a bad meal? Accordingly, I concede that when it comes to the use of public resources it is
entirely appropriate to assign a lower priority to the arts than to these other pressing social
problems. Yet, to postpone public arts funding until we completely eliminate unemployment
and hunger would be to postpone arts funding forever; any informed person who believes
otherwise is envisioning a pure socialist state where the government provides for all of its
citizens' needs--a vision which amounts to fantasy.
It might also be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that arts patronage is
neither an appropriate nor a necessary funcuon of government. This argument has
considerable merit, in three respects. First, it seems ill-conceived to relegate decision and
choices about arts funding to a handful of bureaucrats, who are likely to decide based on their
own quirky notions about art, and whose decisions might be susceptible to influence-peddling.
Second, private charity and philanthropy appear to be alive and well today. For example, year
after year the Public Broadcasting System is able to survive, and even thrive, on donations
from private foundations and individuals. Third, government funding requires tax dollars from
our pockets--leaving us with less disposable dollars with which to support the arts directly and
more efficiently than any bureaucracy ever could.
On the other hand are two compelling arguments that public support for the arts is desirable,
whether or not unemployment and hunger have been eliminated. One such argument is that
by allocating public resources to the arts we actually help to solve these social problems.
Consider Canada's film industry, which is heavily subsidized by the Canadian government, and
which provides countless jobs for film-industry workers as a result. The Canadian government
also provides various incentives for American productoion companies to f~n and produce their
movies in Canada. These incentives have sparked a boon for the Canadian economy, thereby
sumulating job growth and wealth that can be applied toward education, job training, and
social programs. The Canadian example is proof that public arts support can help solve the
kinds of social problems with which the speaker is concerned. 感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全(47) 》一文,出国留学网(liuxue86.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。
分享