Issue144 第10篇 我爱砖头
------题目------
It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value.
*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
------正文------
What is the lasting value of art? In my opinion, it is the creative imagination and common emotion involved in the art works which are created by the artists, but not the comments on its value which are put on the common masses by the critics. Based on this point, I agree with the speaker although the critics have their other contribution to the society.
To begin with, it is obvious to see that art works are created by the artists, not the critics. Artists are the direct contributors to bring the lasting value to the world. If there are no critics in the world, the great art works can still perpetuate by humans. But if there are no artists, the critics will lose the meaning of existence. As a matter of fact, we can enjoy the beauty of Mona Lisa without finding out what is the true purpose of Vinci to paint it. Just like we can enjoy a feast without understanding what the function of every dish is. Thus ignoring the criticism and its originator cannot effect the appreciation of an art work.
Furthermore, the critics actually keep us from understanding the deep value of the art works someway. An art work, which is congealed with the beauty of the artist's emotion and imagination, is sometimes beyond the ability of language to express. Since language has its own limitation to deliver the insight of arts, even if the critics understand the far-reaching meaning of the art works, they can not express it exactly to others, not to mention the critics may be also confined to their thought mode. When an art work is peeled through the comments, the impact of the art on us which act as a whole will be undermined and our experience to apperceive the art work emotionally and spiritually may be deprived of by the language.
What is more, the comments from the critics on art works also damage the creation of lasting value of arts. It is in the art area that the repetition must be abandoned, while what the critics bring to art area is just the repetition and unification. For instance, the film producers may get the feedback of a movie is most likely from a few kinds of criticisms as if they are the voice of the public, and then adjust it to cater to the so-called appetite of the masses. As a result, the films are all the same because they are produced according to a few thoughts. The same thing happens in the popular novels, music and paintings. Over the long haul, the monotony must be a catastrophe to art.
Admittedly, the criticisms have some social function which has little relevance to art. In distinguishing the true art and the lavatorial art, it is the critics who provide the criteria to the masses who are not professional enough to discard the ill art. Therefore, the contribution of critics lies in the function of cultivating the masses but not cultivating the artists.
To sum up, the artists are the real ones who provide society of lasting value, while the critics, without contribution to art, are actually the preventers of the development of arts, although their merits are in other areas but art.作者: godspell 时间: 2005-7-18 15:42:34
What is the lasting value of art? In my opinion, it is the creative imagination and common emotion involved in the art works which are created by the artists, but not the comments on its value which are put on the common masses by the critics. Based on this point, I agree with the speaker although the critics have their other contribution to the society.
To begin with, it is obvious to see that art works are created by the artists, not the critics. Artists are the direct contributors to bring the lasting value to the world（这里应该是art吧？是艺术家赐予了艺术品价值啊）. If there are no critics in the world, the great art works can still perpetuate by humans.（不一定啊，也有可能没有批评家的鉴赏，一些有价值的作品被埋没，毕竟大众在艺术方面是外行，缺乏专业的艺术素养） But if there are no artists, the critics will lose the meaning of existence. As a matter of fact, we can enjoy the beauty of Mona Lisa without finding out what is the true purpose of Vinci to paint it. Just like we can enjoy a feast without understanding what the function of every dish is. Thus ignoring the criticism and its originator cannot effect the appreciation of an art work.
Furthermore, the critics actually keep us from understanding the deep value of the art works someway. An art work, which is congealed with the beauty of the artist's emotion and imagination, is sometimes beyond the ability of language to express. Since language has its own limitation to deliver the insight of arts, even if the critics understand the far-reaching meaning of the art works, they can not express it exactly to others, not to mention the critics may be also confined to their thought mode. When an art work is peeled through the comments, the impact of the art on us which act as a whole will be undermined and our experience to apperceive the art work emotionally and spiritually may be deprived of by the language.
What is more, the comments from the critics on art works also（这里用“可能”这个词比较好 ，不一定是damage） damage the creation of lasting value of arts. It is in the art area that the repetition must be abandoned, while what the critics bring to art area is just the repetition and unification. For instance, the film producers may get the feedback of a movie is most likely from a few kinds of criticisms as if they are the voice of the public, and then adjust it to cater to the so-called appetite of the masses. As a result, the films are all the same because they are produced according to a few thoughts. The same thing happens in the popular novels, music and paintings. Over the long haul, the monotony must be a catastrophe to art.
Admittedly, the criticisms have some social function which has little relevance to art. In distinguishing the true art and the lavatorial art, it is the critics who provide the criteria to the masses who are not professional enough to discard the ill art. Therefore, the contribution of critics lies in the function of cultivating the masses but not cultivating the artists.
To sum up, the artists are the real ones who provide society of lasting value, while the critics, without contribution to art, are actually the preventers of the development of arts, although their merits are in other areas but art.
还不错
论证方面还应该加油，多看看范文，还有这方面的资料，肯定会对自己大有帮助哦~~ :D
:D:D:D:D作者: godspell 时间: 2005-7-18 15:43:19