GMAT作文的范文:国家和艺术的关系
答案:1 悬赏:80 手机版
解决时间 2021-03-01 16:47
- 提问者网友:你挡着我发光了
- 2021-03-01 13:02
GMAT作文的范文:国家和艺术的关系
最佳答案
- 五星知识达人网友:枭雄戏美人
- 2021-03-01 14:00
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
我要举报
如以上问答信息为低俗、色情、不良、暴力、侵权、涉及违法等信息,可以点下面链接进行举报!
大家都在看
推荐资讯