外文翻译--政府政策与动画(编辑修改稿)

外文翻译--政府政策与动画(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. The development created an organizational foundation for those actors and interests in the field which were separated from the mercial market, and initiated the development of a new professional subfield of ics. National ics production extended its share of the ics market during the 1980s. In this decade, the bookstore circulation of ics albums and the market for albums meant for adults established themselves in Finland, and these markets had a growing supply of Finnish main factor in this development was the rise of small publishers specializing in ics. The number of Finnish ics in the newspapers also grew, partly due to the setting up of a Finnish ics syndicate at the beginning of the 1980s. A few nonprofessional magazines published by local ics societies also started to appear during the 1980s (Heikkinen 1991, p. 137). Within the realm of cultural policy, the traditional divisions and borderlines changed during the 1980s in many respects. Comics were one of the reevaluated areas. After the early years of the decade, restrictive measures against producing and distributing ics were no longer proposed by the makers of cultural policy. Demands for censorship and restrictions focused on videos instead of ics (see, ., Samola 1989). Concerning ics, cultural policy adopted a double orientation. The first signs of this double orientation were already expressed in the Government’s report to Parliament on the arts policy in 1978. Besides restrictions for importing and distributing ‘material that seriously endangers the development of children and young people’, the report also proposed measures to ‘increase the supply of alternative material of high quality’ (Hallituksen taidepoliittinen selonteko 1979, pp. 27–31). The 1979 ad hoc mittee on children’s culture also exemplifies this double orientation, which meant in practice that ics were treated with qualified acceptance. Although the mittee suggested that the proposed ics tax should cover all material classified as ics, ics which were ‘suitable for children and of high quality’ could be exempted from the tax. In addition, the mittee proposed discretionary support for the national production of children’s culture, which, in principle, could be granted to ics, too (. 1979, pp. 109–110, 118–125). The explicit cultural policy definitions produced by this double orientation were twofold. On the one hand, ics were still excluded from the arts and deemed as harmful, especially for children and young people. On the other hand, the field of ics was defined as a potential target area for government support aimed at promoting children’s culture. The key words qualifying this partial acceptance were ‘national’, ‘quality’ and ‘suitable for children’. As a potential area for state support for children’s culture, ics became defined as ‘culture’ at least conditionally, and in the meaning of the broader definition proclaimed by the cultural policy launched in the 1970s. Gradual inclusion In the late 1980s, several of the areas defined as outsiders regarding state support for the arts began to organize themselves as active interest groups. Among the areas seeking inclusion were circus, ics and a group of artists calling themselves ‘others’.14 The official respo。