GMAT考试写作指导：Issue写作范文二二

　　22. 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 societys 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.