issue7 GRE作文.docVIP

As is described in the issue, some people believe that the government funding of art is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people, while others believe that the funding of the arts threatens the integrity of arts. To begin with, the opinions on both sides can should be analyzes whether they are applicable to be carried out effectively. In addition, in the conditions that partially support the opinion, more attention should be paid to whether in all scenarios are their views relevant to the anticipated result. And in some conditions, the advice may also cause the opposite effect. So, unless the core concept of the issue is thoroughly analyzed, the result drawn out of which will prove inadequate and useless. Admittedly, it is shrewd to acknowledge that the both opinions on the government funding more or less have its own correctness. In some occasions the funding by government can help the prosperity of the arts. For example, money can attract more people to devote to arts and it can truly, in some extent, become a stimulus to that field. And on the contrary side, the money from government may deduce the laziness of artists and eliminate the inspiration and desire. However, the both side have much flaws in logics and analysis. In terms of the first opinion, the assertion that the funding can lead to flourishment makes the cause and effect error. The too much funding sometimes can cause corruption, which will erode the heart of artists. For example, there are greatest number of writers and actors in china, and they are supported by government with decent funding. However, none writers have won Nobel Prize in writing and very few actors have ever won Oscar. What’s more, it is alleged that the funding is necessary. There are also many other ways to help the arts strive. Artists may become masters by learning themselves. For example Da Vinci, born in a very rich family, without much help from government, become a tremendous artist and