快速查题-中学教师资格证试题

      President Arling has put his long awaited economic restructuring program before the Congress. It provides a coordinated

program of investment credits, research grants, education reforms, and changes designed to make American industry more

competitive. This is necessary to reverse economic slide into unemployment, lack of growth, and trade deficits that have

plagued the economy for the past six years.

      The most liberal wing of the President’s party has called for stronger and more direct action. They want an incomes policy

to check inflation while federal financing helps rebuild industry behind a wall of protective tariffs.

     The Republicans, however, decry even the modest, graduated tax increases in the President’s program. They want tax

cuts and more open market. They say if federal money has to be injected into the economy, let it through defence spending.

     Both these alternatives ignore the unique nature of the economic problem before us. It is not simply a matter of markets or

financing. The new technology allows vastly increased production for those able to master it. But it also threatens those who

fail to adopt it with permanent second-class citizenship in the world economy. If an industry cannot lever itself up to the leading stage of technological advances, then it will not be able to compete effectively. If it cannot do this, no amount of government

protectionism or access to foreign markets can keep it profitable for long.  Without the profits and experience of technological excellence to reinvest, that industry can only fall still further behind its foreign competitors.

    So the crux is the technology and that is where the President’s program focused. The danger is not that a plan will not be

passed, it is that the ideologues of right and left will distort the bill with amendments that will blur its focus on technology. The

economic restructuring plan should be passed intact.  If we fail to restructure our economy now, we may not get a second

chance.

       “Museum” is a slippery word. It first meant (in Greek) anything consecrated to the Muses: a hill, a shrine, a garden, a

festival or even a textbook. Both Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum had a mouseion, a muses shrine. Although the

Greeks already collected detached works of art, many temples—notably that of Hera at Olympia (before which the Olympic

flame is still lit)—had collections of objects, some of which were works of art by well-known masters, while paintings and sculptures in the Alexandrian Museum were incidental to its main purpose.

        The Romans also collected and exhibited art from disbanded temples, as well as mineral specimens, exotic plants,

animals; and they plundered sculptures and paintings (mostly Greek) for exhibition. Meanwhile, the Greek word had slipped

into Latin by transliteration (though not to signify picture galleries, which were called pinacothecae) and museum still more or

less meant “Muses- shrine”.

       The inspirational collections of precious and semi-precious objects were kept in larger churches and monasteries—which

focused on the gold-enshrined, bejewelled relics of saints and martyrs. Princes, and later merchants, had similar collections,

which became the deposits of natural curiosities: large lumps of amber or coral, irregular pearls, unicorn horns, ostrich eggs,

fossil bones and so on. They also included coins and gems—often antique engraved ones—as well as, increasingly, paintings and sculptures. As they multiplied and expanded, to supplement them, the skill of the fakers grew increasingly refined.

      At the same time, visitors could admire the very grandest paintings and sculptures in the churches, palaces and castles;

they were not “collected” either, but “site-specific”, and were considered an integral part both of the fabric of the buildings and of the way of life which went on inside them—and most of the buildings were public ones. However, during the revival of

antiquity in the fifteenth century, fragments of antique sculpture were given higher status than the work of any contemporary,

so that displays of antiquities would inspire artists to imitation, or even better, to emulation; and so could be considered Muses- shrines in the former sense. The Medici garden near San Marco in Florence, the Belvedere and the Capitol in Rome were

the most famous of such early “inspirational” collections. Soon they multiplied, and, gradually, exemplary “modern” works were also added to such galleries.

     In the seventeenth century, scientific and prestige collecting became so widespread that three or four collectors independently published directories to museums all over the known world. But it was the age of revolutions and industry which produced the next sharp shift in the way the institution was perceived: the fury against royal and church monuments prompted antiquarians to shelter them in asylum-galleries, of which the Musee des Monuments Francais was the most famous. Then, in the first

half of the nineteenth century, museum funding took off, allied to the rise of new wealth: London acquired the National Gallery and the British Museum, the Louvre was organized, the Museum-Insel was begun in Berlin, and the Munich galleries were

built. In Vienna, the huge Kunsthistorisches and Naturhistorisches Museums took over much of the imperial treasure.

Meanwhile, the decline of craftsmanship (and of public taste with it) inspired the creation of “improving” collections. The

Victoria and Albert Museum in London was the most famous, as well as perhaps the largest of them.