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 temping 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 speakers statement seems to be that cultural enrichment pale 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 Apure socialist state where the government provides for all of its citizens needs----a vision which amounts to fantasy. It might also be temping to agree with the speaker on the basis that arts patronage is neither an appropriate nor a necessary function of government. This argument has considerable merit, in three respects. First, it semms ill-concevied 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 foudations 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 effciently than any bureaucracy ever could. On the other hand are two complling arguments that public support for the arts is desirable. whether or not unemployment and hunger have been eliminated. One such argument is that bu allocating public resources to the arts we actually help to solve thes social problems. Consider Candas films industry, which is heavily subsidized by the Canadian government, and which provides various incentives jobs for film-industry workers as a result. The Canadian government also provides incentives for American production companies to film and produce their movies in Canada.These incentices hace sparked a boon for the Canadian economy, thereby stimulating 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. A second argument against the speakers position has to do with the function and ultimate objectives of art. Art serves to lift the human spirit and to put us more in touch with our feelings, foibles, and fate----in short, with our own humanity. With a heightened sensitivity to the human condition, we become more others-oriented, less self-centered, nore giving of ourselves In other words, we become a more charitable society----more willing to give to those les fortunate than ourselves in the ways with which the speaker is concerned. The speaker might argue, of course, that we do a disservice to others when we lend a helping hand----by enabling them to depend on us to survive. However, at the heart of this specious argument lies a certain coldness and lack of compassion that, in my view, philosophical, and morel issues that this brief essay cannot begin to address. In the fianl analysis, the beneficiaries of public arts funding are not limited to the elitists who stroll through big-city museums and attend sumphonies and gallery openings, as the speaker might have us believe. public resources allocated to the arts create jobs for artists and others whose livelihood depends on a vibrant, rich culture----just the sort of culutre that breeds charitable concern for the hungry, the helping, and hapless.
作者认为在一个社会里，有些人不食品利用公众资源来支持艺术是不合理的，工作和生存的基本技能。它可能是倾向于同意的基础上的扬声器，艺术不是人类的基本需要，而且当谈到它的动机和方法，政府是不是完全可信的。然而，演讲者忽略了一定的经济和其他社会好处时，政府则支持艺术的积极作用。演讲者的陈述背后隐含的理由似乎是，文化丰富的重要性相比，食品，服装和住房的重要性。后者的需求是比较基本的，是不争的；毕竟，什么饥饿的人会喜欢一个好的绘画，甚至一个坏的饭？因此，我承认，当它涉及到使用公共资源，这是完全恰当的分配比其他紧迫的社会问题，这是一个较低的优先级。然而，公共艺术基金推迟，直到我们完全消除失业和饥饿会推迟艺术资助永远；任何知情人士认为，否则是构想阿普雷社会主义国家地方政府提供所有公民的需要----视觉相当于幻想。这也可能是倾向于同意的基础上的扬声器，艺术赞助是不适当的和必要的政府职能。这一论点有相当的优点，在三个方面。第一，它SEMMS病concevied降级决定和选择艺术资助少数官僚，谁都有可能决定自己古怪的概念艺术的基础上，和他们的决策可能受影响兜售。其次，私人慈善事业和慈善事业似乎是活得很好的今天。例如，在今年的公共广播系统是能够生存，甚至茁壮成长，从私人基础和个人捐款。第三，政府的资金需要纳税人的钱从我们的口袋里，留给我们，少用一次性美元来支持艺术的直接和更有效地比任何官僚能。另一方面是两complling认为公共艺术支持是可取的。失业和饥饿是否被消除。这样的一个说法是，不分配公共资源我们实际上有助于解决这些社会问题的艺术。考虑到加拿大的电影产业，这是由加拿大政府大量补贴，并提供各种奖励工作为电影产业工人的一个结果。加拿大政府也提供激励美国生产公司电影生产的电影在加拿大。这些incentices HACE引发了对加拿大经济有利，从而刺激就业增长和财富，可以用于教育，工作培训，和社会项目。加拿大的例子是证明，公共艺术支持可以帮助解决的社会问题，与扬声器有关。对演讲者的立场的第二个论据，与艺术的功能和最终目标。艺术是解除人类精神和使我们更多地与我们的感情联系，弱点，和命运----总之，我们自己的人性。高度敏感的人的条件，我们成为更他人为导向，不以自我为中心，诺尔给自己在其他的话，我们成为一个更慈善社会----更愿意来给到那些LES幸运比自己在方式与扬声器是有关。发言者可能会说，当然，我们会伤害别人的时候，我们伸出援助之手，使他们能够依靠我们生存。然而，在这个似是而非的论点的核心是一种冷淡和缺乏同情心，在我看来，哲学，并认为这篇短文能解决道德问题。在最终的分析中，公共艺术基金的受益者不限于精英谁漫步在大城市的博物馆和参加sumphonies和画廊开幕，作为演讲者可能会让我们相信。公共资源分配的艺术创造工作的艺术家和其他人，他们的生计依赖于一个充满活力的，富有文化----那种文化，孕育着慈善关怀的饿，的帮助，倒霉。