一、有保留的同意观点，三段式的写法，用两到三段去写artist的贡献，一段写critic的贡献。
而具体写artist的时候可以：
① 分开艺术的几个领域来写（比如文中解释critic的时候提到的文学，电影，音乐和绘画等方面）
② 分开艺术发展的几个时期来写（比如文艺复兴时期，启蒙运动时期和十九世纪以后的现实主义的发展，但需要提出的是，前面这两种写法对知识面的要求是比较广的，所以仅供参考，另外，分空间或者时间来写的写法，切忌出现例子上的堆砌，不要因为例子比较多就狂写一气，例子只是为了证明观点用的，所以最好能例子和自己的论述相结合）
③ 写artist对于贡献lasting value所体现出来的比critic优胜的几个方面的优势。这里的写法就比较多了，下面会具体地举例说明。
二、有保留地反对观点，与上面同理。
下面就同意观点的第三种写法举例来说明。
论点：尽管critic对人们理解artistic work体现出了媒介的一种作用，可给社会提供了lasting value的终究还是artist，因为artist具有critic所不具有的多方面特点，such as originality and uniqueness。
1：It is no denying that works of art could bring society something cannot be substituted.
（论述艺术家的作用，分两方面，一方面是为社会提供了重要的信息，分历史、宗教和社会三个，分别用了西班牙洞穴绘画、圣母子和蒙克的呐喊；另一方面是在带来美感的同时给人们以精神的鼓舞，例子用了米开朗基罗和贝多芬）
2：Aside from the foregoing proviso, however, I do disagree that critics do no effort in giving society something of lasting value.
（这一段论述批评家的积极作用，例子是Monet的日出和达芬奇的Mona Lisa）
3：As is shown above, equitable and objective criticism could help people to find out the value of art works and give society some lasting-value thing, but for the limitation of comprehension critics could not always make correct criticism, which would minify, even exterminate the achievement of artists and impede the development of art. （主题句好像太长了...）
（这一段论述批评家的消极作用，例子是Van Gogh）
提纲：首先对原文it is the artist who give society something of lasting value.进行回 应
Most artists used the arts to express their deepest private feelings and their unique vision of the universes.
其次，原文overstate the importance of the artist in the art history. The critic can also play an equally important role in giving something of lasting value in the history of art
具体作用分为一下两点：
对观众角度，过滤器的作用，引起人们的注意。
对艺术家，是催化剂, 提升其创作水平
提纲：（观点：大部分赞同作者看法）
1. sometimes critics’ evaluation is valuable
2. critics have various limitations and sometimes may holdback the development of art (这点是否有点不切题呢？)
3. essentially the lasting value of art is given by artists作者: flycc28 时间: 2006-7-10 03:25:39
144. "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value." * novels, films, music, paintings(类似题目：ISSUE143)
144. 是艺术家而不是批评家，带给社会一些具有持久价值的东西。
１． 分解题目：
who is an artist? If there several kind of artists, what are they?
Is there any relationship between an artist and his work and the value of his work? what are these relationships? who is a critic?
Is there any difference between a good and a bad critic? what does a critic do? what mistakes as well as contributions have they made? what is their relationship with artists? what does value mean in this issue? Is there any difference between values in respective societies?
what does our society need?
２． Brainstorming:
社会的持久价值到底是什么，在不同的价值观之下，其实不同的社会有不同的看法，但是在艺术这件事上，我认为不同的社会是共通的，对艺术本身的看法可能根据不同的价值观有所不同，但是对于批评家和艺术家，对于社会价值的建立，应该说我们有着一个相同的看法．就像社会要有立法机构和监督机构一样，艺术上也要有创造和批评，创造性，灵感和批判思维，其实不是对立的，而是相辅相成的．我们应该把这些都纳入社会的价值中去．艺术的博大决定了他的兼容并包，而一个博大的艺术必然不排斥对于创造的批评．这里的批评不是说的挑毛病，而是对艺术家的创造做深刻的分析，其实对艺术创造本身的分析，作品的社会价值，艺术内涵，作者的创作思路，表现的目的，艺术表现的优劣，这些评价实际上不是游离于艺术之外的，而是和艺术作品一起被博大的艺术所包容．就像很多的批评家其实本身也是艺术作品的创作者，所以说艺术家和批评家不仅在许多时候的可以共存的，甚至有的时候，他们共存于一个人身上．可以说，是艺术和对他们的评价这样一个整体为社会提供了完整的，持久的艺术价值．
３． 提纲：（对brainstorming进行筛选分类）
观点：采取综合的平衡观点，但侧重立批评家，因为艺术家创造社会价值这一观点是社会主流，所以着力立不太被接受的批评家，最后达到观点上的平衡．
正文段１：论点：艺术的创造和灵感提供给社会长久的价值．
论证：艺术家进行艺术创作，或反映生活现状，或影射作者内心世界，或揭露社会阴暗面，或歌颂英雄人物，各种的艺术家们以不同的方式反映社会的变化和现状，预示社会的未来发展，从比较小的方面看，艺术家的作品为我们提供了欣赏和收藏的对象，启发我们对生活和社会的感悟，所以说艺术家的创作为我们提供了社会和个人的双重价值．
正文段２论点：但是，批评家可以对艺术家进行＂监督＂指引人们更好的理解艺术
论证：艺术家的创作是靠灵感的，但是我们的社会更注重理性，所以批评家的存在使我们在艺术和现实之间找到了一个切入点，在欣赏艺术的同时又不脱离社会实际．批评家可以从更高的置身事外的角度分析艺术作品，挖掘作品内涵，评价作品优劣．更好的反映艺术的价值．
正文段３：论点：同时，批评家的批评可以使艺术家更好的审视自己的作品和创作理念，去粗取精．
论证：艺术家毕竟是人，人无完人，那么艺术家的创作就没有完全的完美，批评家其实本身就是艺术家，他们的专业性的评价可以使得艺术家的下一次创作或者作品更加的充满活力，可以说，是艺术家和批评家共同将艺术展现在世人面前的！
Words: 603 time: 70mins
Does the artist give society something of lasting value rather than the critic? The speaker claims so, I tend to agree with the view insofar as that some great artists’ splendid works give society something of lasting value indeed, however, in some sense, it is the critic who help the artist create better works though giving suggestions to them. In my opinion, both artist and critic contribute much to the society.
Looking trough the history, there is no doubt that the artists create many great works which influence people at all times. From their works, we can learn much. For instance, from Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa”, we are potty about the mysterious smile; from Monet’s “Impression: Sunrise”, we can find describing the world by another way is wonderful; from Beethoven’s music, we can hear the bottom of his strong heart ; from the outstanding movie “The Lord of the Rings”, we are shocked by the gallant scenes. All these great works contribute much to the development of the human’s culture, and give human something of lasting value. Some of them were not accepted then, even disdained by the critic. For example, Van Gogh, two of whose still life paintings have recently broken all records in selling for $50 million, sold only one of his paintings in his entire career. But these works are proved to be some endless wealth for the later person.
Although from the surface, we can draw a conclusion that it is the artists who give much value to the society. But thinking deeply, we will find that without the art critic, in some sense art cannot embody its significance thoroughly. Critics can help us to understand and interpret art. A critic who is familiar with a particular artist and his works or his thoughts can have certain insights about the works but the layperson can not. Their professional evaluation can teach us how to enjoy the works, and at the same time, they can also lead us find better works so that we can save our time and attention. For example, in Chinese, almost everybody knows the famous book “Dream of the red chamber” which plays an important part in Chinese literature history. The book can achieve such great reputation not only for the author CaoXueqin but also a famous critic called ZhiYanzhai. It is him who commented the book from the head to the end to make later person to understand the book’s more clearly. Therefore, the critic can be a bridge between the works and the layperson. They lead us to find the true value in the works.
In addition, a critic can provide some creative feedback for artists. Although they can not create them by themselves, they understand them. They can analyze them from other directions, maybe more proper ways. By this way, there can always be better thoughts offered to the artists, and constructive criticism too. If the artists take them to heart, much better works will appear. For example, the famous musician Chopin wrote a new piece of work then showed it to his neighbor, an old woman who was blind but had good hearing. She evaluated the work and told him her thoughts. Chopin made better work by taking her advices. It is possible that the critic make mistakes on some works sometimes, but most parts of them can make valuable evaluation, which can impel the development of the art.
In sum, both the artist and the critic have positive effects on the creation of great works. By combining them, there could be more and more permanent art emerging in the world.
感受：看了模版和网上提纲写出来的。自己基础很差，遣词造句上有很大问题，老是用那几个词那几个句式，文章显得很枯燥，本来也看了很多句式，一写起来就用不出来。还老拼错词，请各位高手多指点一二。谢谢。
TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "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.
WORDS: 518 TIME: 1:02:52 DATE: 2006-7-10
提纲
观点：不同意标题看法，认为artists和critics同样重要。
1、艺术家创作的艺术作品有各种各样的价值；
2、批评家也对艺术品的持续价值做出了贡献；
3、承认有些滥竽充数的“挑剔的人”有时候并不懂艺术品。
From the title statement, the speaker elaborates the assertion that artists are able to provide the society more things of lasting value rather than critics. Some people may define "lasting value" as "works of art that is left to the following generations", so they will accept wholeheartedly with the arguer. But their definition is somewhat partial, because they neglect what has caused works of art to gain its value and remain valuable even centuries later. The reasons will include both the brilliant character of the art works and the comments made by critics. So in my opinion, I will argue that both artists and critics are playing important roles in giving art works lasting value.
On the one hand, it is the reason of the great works of art itself, which is developed by artists, has considerable values in many aspects, such as aesthetics, history, recreation, etc. We all know the famous novelist, Hemingway, who wrote a great many novels during World War Two, including “A Farewell to Arms”, “The Old Man and the Sea”, etc.; and his novels presented sarcastic phenomena about politics and military in that special time, which is a precious property in historical values. When sitting in front of the television watching former films such as “Modern Times”, “The Gold Rush”, “City Lights” by Chaplin, we cannot help complaining at the side effect of the Industrial Revolution; albeit the films are produced without voices, we can acquire enough information of history, together with the sidesplitting skills of the films. There are also lots of examples concerning music, paintings, sculptures and so forth, which have appreciable values to the whole society, but I have little time to mention them.
On the other hand, critics, whose jobs are evaluating works of art, should not be neglected for their offstage contribution to the valuable artifacts. Firstly, works of art is produced for appraising of the whole society. Critics, who are parts of the society, always don't have the skills of making artwork, but they have perspicuous views, which may help artists make their works of art become more mature in order to give the society lasting value. Secondly, critics can judge works of art better than ordinary people who are not good at evaluating artwork. Most of the well-known paintings have become popular after critics gave out high comments about them, such as Leonardo da Vinci's work of “Mona Lisa” came to be known for its mysterious smile only after some critics had found it. In short, lasting value of arts may not be obtained without the help of critics.
However, the competences of critics are not equal. We may find some critics around us, who even don't have the ability to judge works of art. They just go with others to exhibitions or museums in the purpose of criticizing the artists without a professional reason, for lack of knowledge. This kind of people exists factually, but they cannot delegate all the critics. It is sure that there are a great many critics who are devoted to help the whole society understand better the works of art. We cannot live without them.
To conclude, we must make just judgment on critics who also contribute to the values of artwork. In order to acknowledge better the lasting value of works of art, we have to concern the effects of both artists and critics.
MY FIRST PIECE OF ISSUE!3X!
Da vinci, the famous artist of painting, was known by the world many years after his death. Einstein, the great physical scientist who gave the theory of relativity, was afraid to let the world know his work until his life ended. Neither of them was recognized by people at first just because there was no critics who had the ability to evaluate their works and make the world known how great they were. So while we value the contribution of the artist, there is no need to trivialize the significance of critic's work.
It's common knowledge that without artist there would be no works of art of any sort. Any artist in the world has been doing hard--even spent their life time--for their work. Da vinci gave world the famous smile of Mona Lisa, which was treated as treasure that represents the peak of art in painting. Einstein described the essence of mass and set a milestone of physics when as he said was on the shoulder of giant. Artists' intelligence fills the world of art with colorful stars which shine brightly and make the society develop. A democracy is not called a democracy without their existence.
However, it is usually the critic who discovers the artist, makes him or her known to the public, and records his or her achievement in history books. No artist would expect people to understand everything that he or she has done, but certainly they would like people to be clear about the importance of their works either for the development of the society or just for enjoyment. This job was definitely done by critics, who first let society know the existence of the artist, and the contribution he or she has done, then record the achievement in the history books in memory of the resplendence. Without critics, artists would be just in a world nobody can get into or even hear about, and then their names would vanish through flush of the history river.
Additionally, the critic's criticism helps the artist to improve his or her work. The artists cannot see every aspect of his or her works, some advice or defect of the works is strongly needed. It is a way to improve the work and also the qualification of the artist.
In sum, we should recognize the great contribution the artist has done through his or her long endeavor, and also value the work of critics who show the greatness of the artist. They compromise the system which gives society something of lasting value and make people's everyday life more brilliant.作者: morallrey 时间: 2006-7-10 18:47:51
seat taken!
To hand in writing!作者: dreadfull 时间: 2006-7-10 19:17:36
TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "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.
WORDS: 492 TIME: 2:21:41 DATE: 2006-7-11
It is quite a controversial issue to deciding whether the artist or the critic create the lasting value. I absolutely agree with that the artist's originality is the most important to the value of works of art. However, it is not appropriate to totally neglect the function of critics in the process of creating this value.
Art has a lasting value in aesthetics, which is delivered by the artist through his/her work. Beethoven's ninth symphonies express the power of life, while Mozart's sonata are full of glory of humanity; Michelangelo's statuary David exhibits the beauty of human body, while Mona lisa's smile created by Da Vinci left people infinite wonder. When creating these significant works, composers devoted into the music their emotion and thoughts, which is the soul of the work. The artist's inspiration and creativity make a great work, thus artist is undoubtedly essential to the lasting value of works of art.
However, another essential value provided by art is the sense of social education and we should not ignore the important part that the critics make in the process of transmitting artists' personality into social value. Someone may argue that not like science, art is for appreciation rather than telling some knowledge, and the critics just stop individuals from cultivate their own understanding. To rebut, I will demonstrate the function of critics in two respects.
Firstly, in my view, the function of critics don't lie on that they tell some facts, or rather their opinions may induce comprehensive cerebration and response. Take movies for example. When a film is completed, its value is still confined in a small field. Critics evaluate this film and present his/her perspective on media, such as newspaper, TV, and internet. No matter it is applause or depreciation, the criticism attracts society's attention. People may disagree with the critic, then they may come up with new positions. The understanding of the film may get much deeper in debate, till it finally has an impact on social values or even creats new ones. In other fields of art such as literature, which has a much longer history, we can also observe the function of crtics.
Secondly, compared with common people, the critics usually have a deep insight into the value of artistic works. Most professional critics are learned in relevant fileds, or sometimes they are the top masters. They clearly know from which points should the work be analysed, and they have a substantial background of artistic culture. They may point out the specific condition of creation and how it may affect the originator. Without these information, common people may just have a superficial understanding or intuitionistic feeling. It is helpful for appreciator to based their own ideas on professional background introduction. In this sense, critics play a crucial role in the aesthetic education.
In sum, while artists are essential in creating lasting values through their works, critics also own specific and important status in this process.
issue144:"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.
One of symbols of the society's advancement is the art's advancement, to which the artist and the critic contribute themselves together. Although the author asserts that the artist has given society something of lasting value, not critic, in my opinion, the advancement of art calls for a balance between the artist and the critic, no matter what effects, positive or negative, the critic could make to art.
No doubt that the artists have made the great and everlasting value to our society in many aspects, including the outstanding paintings that inspire people and give human hopes, the symphonies and movies that release human's ideas, meanwhile, in many fields even in religions that purify human's spirit with the artists' works. The great artist Vinci, I believe everyone knows him as his work Mona Lisa, represents the outstanding to people and his works draw the world's eyeball. With Mona Lisa's mystical smile he makes people enjoy art and his work gives the whole society the everlasting value. Besides the painting, other art works also have the great value that will be in the world for ever. They contribute greatly to the advancement of art.
Not only the artists, but also the critics devote to the progress of art, because the critic would be activator to promote the artist works, in the other hand, the critic would be filter for human to give rid of the draffy and leave the distillate. Furthermore, the moderate critique can make the artist works being more valuable to society. As some great man has said that no critique, no progress. This sentence represents the meaning of the critic's existence.
But just like the general rule, the extreme is bad. Over critique might strike the young artist's enthusiastic zeal and influence that the public judgments to the works that might be good become opposite to the original and right ones. Van Gogh, who created the impressionism on painting, and his works didn’t be accepted until his death. The main reason causing this result is that critics did not appreciate his works and induct the public to criticize them. But his thoughts and works are great and originality, as has been proved by being appreciated by public in latter time. As this example has indicated, this kind of critique would block the advanced paces of art and destroy the society of lasting value.
The relationship between artists and critics is just like the universal regular in the world. The phenomena that one side has more advantage than the other-too many artists’ works or criticises -is the poison of the art, and it could not bring the lasting value to society. So the society of art needs a balance between the artist and the critic.
Issue144 提纲：
（1） definition of lasting value, the roles played by artist and ciritcs
（2） In the regime of Painting. example, vincent Van Gogh
（3） In the regime of music, Beethoven
（4） In the regime of fiction, More, and his Utopia
（5） conclusion.
作文正在重新写
Does artist give society something of last value rather than the critic? The authour think so. As we all know, the art works are created by artists, and it is artists' innovated mind make the work fabulous. However, without critics, these famous works is hard to be accepted by ordinary people and they may have a lasting value.
It is artists, who give the birth of art. Without them, critics is just like a great chef, running out of meats, vegetables, seasoning. Although the chef may be well command of the cooking, none dish can be accomplished. Artists, with the passion to create a artistic world, devoted their time and thoughts into the art itself, making efforts to promote the art's value, and eventually gestate their works.
It is artists, whose creativy is the major resource of the incredible masterpieces. The inspiration and creativity of artist usually determine the art's value. It is the difference between talented drawer and ordinary wall painter, between proffessional singer and fan of music. Further, the creativy of the artistic works give the appreciater the most fun of art. If a work is less of creativity, then, the work seem to be poor in the value. Schubert's piano songs impressed most of the people for its creativy in the romantic style. Dan brown's Davinci code caught a great number of people's eye for its creativity in the startling plots. And the modern dancing entertained a large amount of peole for its creativity in its choreography. It is creativity that results in the importance of the artistic of the works.
Without critics, most of the people could not perceive the exact meaning of the masterpieces, and the lasting value of the work may be neglected. Generally, people are not experts in art, just being intereted in the art just because of the arts' fuctions, relaxation and education. Moreover, some peole appreciate the style of art of the method to decription from the critics' comments, which tell us the value in the artistic works, and the way to analyze this kind of works. Picaso, the famous artist, is well-known for its abstractive pictures. And he is not famous in his age until he passed away. This probably resulted from the reason than the critics in his age were not as good as the the ones after he died, or just could not understand the meaning of his picture. ALso people living near him, even noticing the strange pictures, cannot discover the distinguished character in his pictures. Thus the pictures become unknown at his age.
In sum, artist is the one give society of lasting value for the birth of artistic works and their creativity. However, without critics' commentations and artcile, these artistic works may not be as famous as it is today and even the value of art may be undermined. The conclusion is that the artist play the main role to give the society of lasting value, but the cirtics is also necessary.
请指教作者: lixiaoxiang 时间: 2006-7-11 00:26:20
144.”It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.”
Syllabus: largely agree
1. concession: critics have some merits
2. artists’ capacity determine the value of different artistic works
3. in many occasions, critics may be detrimental to perpetuate value of artistic works
In the first place, the speaker fails to adequately definite the term “the lasting value”. In my view, the lasting value means that something can provide invaluable and unique reflection of that time for the contemporary and future generation to understand and appreciate the history and culture better, or something that can exert positive advantages on the progress of human beings. Thus, although the critics have some merits apparently, I still basically agree with the speaker that it is artist who can give something of lasting value.
Admittedly, under several certain circumstance, critics can exert some merits. Generally speaking, in most people’s mind, they have three main functions. First, they can act as the feedback to urge the artists create much more outstanding works. Second, they can act as the communication bridge between the audience and creators. Third, the critics can help us to decide which artistic work is worthy our attention.
However, I still largely agree that it is the artists who give us something of lasting value rather that the critics. And even, often enough, the critics may impede the creation of the artists and let alone to mention whether they will bring something valuable. Reasons are below.
Firstly, whether the value of artistic works can be perpetuated is entirely decided by artists’ unique talent and original ability who create them. For the reason that artists are the very person who give birth for their works, the so-called importance of critics makes no sense. It is no denying that without Da vinci, we would never have the opportunity to appreciate Mona Lisa, which is one of the greatest treasures in the Louvre Palace in France. Da vinci created the tri-dimensionality space paining system, he successfully combined painting art and geometry and left significant value for the future generations. Consider Beethoven, the talented composer for example. After listening to his symphonies, people can gain strength from it. And his musical works often encourage people to struggle with their adverse destiny. Both of Da vinci and Beethoven have leave something of lasting value for the society.
Secondly, although critics have some merits as mentioned above, these merits are not related to the purpose—leave something valuable for the society, moreover, if critics are involved in the process of artistic appreciation, sometimes, they will exert several detrimental effects for perpetuating the value of artistic works even. Usually, critics are representative of a certain group or organization, thus their comment may be incorrect or even unjust. He may criticize the artist severely and make the artist lose heart so as to yield valuable artistic works no more. Additionally, the criteria of criticism is always limited on the narrow and established standard. In other words, criticism may not understand the true meaning of ideas of several valuable artists, moreover, they may mislead the masses. Take the genius painter Van gogh for example. He merely sold one piece of painting in his life and led a wretched life. Critics in his time cannot understand him completely, in the contrary, they even regarded him as a madman. The lasting value left by Van gogh is created by himself rather than critics at his time. Therefore, sometimes, critics will impede the creation of artists, let alone to leave something valuable.
In sum, from what has discussed above, we can safely draw a conclusion that it is the artists leave something of lasting value for our society rather than the critics, although critics may have some merits. For the reasons that artists are the people who create original and unique artistic works for the society and perpetuate these works by their talent. Besides, the criticism system may impair creation of the artists and mislead the masses, let alone to mention to judge whether they can leave something valuable.作者: exp03 时间: 2006-7-11 10:24:43
Syllabus:
1. Artist create intrinsic value, but the value may not lasting.
2. Critic discovers true art.
3. Critic leads art to the right direction.
4. Critic makes art more popular among common people.
第一次写ISSUE,一紧张写了一大堆提纲........
Creation supposes a creator. I concede that artist is the creator of the outstanding works, and so he or she provides something of lasting value to society. However, I disagree with the statement in two respects. First, in other ways the critic can call our attention to a lot of artists. In most cases, many of them don't know how to give publicity to their work. Second, Criticism carries other equally important benefits as well, especially in the progress in civilization.
I agree with the statement insofar as through the masterpieces was root in the artist's hard-working. It is the creative minds replete of erratic ideas that add hue to our quotidian life. Like Andre Gide once said “Art is collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better.”No artists, no great pieces of work; No artists, no movements be summed up by critics. No artists, no rich senses of the transaction between writer and reader. Besides, art relefects the world around us, it is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. The classical works are not only image the job, anger, grief and happiness we have, but also annul our civilization's rough way to ideality, so singularly checkered with good and evil, with glory and disgrace. The outstanding artwork provides an invaluable and unique mirror of the humanity and culture, this is the magic of all great poetry, novels, music, and movies; this is what we call something of lasting value for the society.
However beneficial it might be to appreciate the significant handwork of the artist, it is equally important to understand and appreciate that the critic also offers a lot to society. The artists are always idealists through and through, they need help to publicize their work, interpret their advancing thoughts. Then the critic appears. It is especially true when the artist is young and unknown. For instance, T.S.Eliot, living in London, worked as a teacher and bank clerk .He didn’t know who he was until he met his countryman Ezra Pound, who read Eliot's poems and responded enthusiastically. With the help and encouragement of Ezra Pound, Eliot's poetry began to appear in English and American magazines. Pound regarded Eliot as a truly modern poet who had developed an extraordinarily original idiom; he cut a third of ‘waste land” then published the great poetry, that's the origin of the Nobel Prize for literature in 1948. The literary world will never see this masterpiece without the selfless help of this great citric. Technological innovations have taken place, but the spirit of human being is still fragile. We need sympathy or a speculation for the vulnerability of the ordinary human being. Only great art work can give us that. Like Ezra Pound said himself: “ Properly, we should read for power. Man reading should be man intensely alive. The book should be a ball of light in one's hand.” The power exists in the Beethoven's symphonic form as well as the thin figures of a young banker clerk. Someone must take part in the discovery. Don't you think on one can do this work better than a critic?
Another problem with the statement is that it undervalues other, equally important benefits of the work done by the critic. The statement gives a dubious definitionof "lasting value”. The universal human being yearning for something permanent, everlasting, without shadow of change. Undoubtly, the timeless beauty of the work is attributed to artist. However, the critic also plays an important role in the progress in civilization. Every society has its own bundle of values, cultures, and mores which most of its members share. The art work reelects all aspects above. Most important of all, if intercultural exchange doesn't take place; the progress of civilization can't come true either. It is the critic who introduces the great artwork to his or her country's readers, sometimes they even translate it. What with their hard work in intercultural criticism and what with globalization, we become more and more aware of the mix of cultures. Meanwhile,
some new subjects emerge as the times require, for instance, comparative literature.
To sum up, the speaker's claim overstates the importance of the artist, at least to some extent. The creativity from artist provide the enjoy of spirit, but criticism from critic may lead people
into a fretful state . They both give society something of lasting value. Their art activity helps us to formulate informed values and ideals for ourselves, inspires us to great achievement, and helps us appreciate how beautiful our life is.作者: morallrey 时间: 2006-7-13 07:44:01
Issue 144 "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.
word:523 time:60ms
I'm totally in favor of the viewpoint in the issue above that it's the artist ,not the critic who gives society something of lasting value , which I consider would remain in the art permanently and bring to the world some everlasting influence .To articulate this viewpoint ,I have thought of several points elaborated below.
First of all , art was originally created by artist and it's only them who possess the authority to convey the power contained in arts to the society and then develop its value in people's life . Just as we can appreciate and utilize some work especially certain art on the basis that we are permitted by their authors ,We have to pay great honor to the artists who have devised such great work as oil painting , marble figure, or magnificent architecture etc ,for without them such marvelous creature cannot be born .Nevertheless , critic only play the role that disinter the value contained in the art in order to make it more explicit and let people accept them somewhat correctly and easily. However, the value in the art was not altered in fact , since critic only discover but artist does invent ,which is the basic discrepancy.
Furthermore ,it's artists who endow life and spirit to their art ,but critic only render the art vigorous .What makes a work everlasting it's not ephemeral critique ,but the glorious idea hiding behind the art .For example ,the famous music composer Subert once composed a comely ditty called wild rose. who were not commended by his contemporary , but after years went by ,its charm exposed and people feel great sympathy for this great composer who have devoted his life to music to earn his life but finally was tortured to death by the cruelty of fortune .As an aphorism goes ,"True art will be luminous with time flying ".Whatever the remarks imposed on art ,its glory can't be erased.
Finally ,critic also make some contribution to the society, for some critique was itself so-called arts ,and some high level critique not only discover the value of the arts it comment ,but also creat some original idea that make the arts more glorious , hence it also contain some credible value ,however this value is always linked with the arts on which it's established ,so it not a independent value , but only attributes to the arts .For instance, some critiques on dream on the red attic ,one of the most famous classic literature in china, are very eloquent ,but they only belong to the glory of this famous literature .So a new art is a new region , everything in this region only reflect its attribution.
To sum up ,the comparatively more important producer of lasting value is artist ,for their work can alter our world directly. However, Critic only play some minor role in creating lasting value, for their work is affiliated to art, so would be influential only when art exist .Their value is to give the art whether authentic or fake judgement , which is not value society need most, and will not be lasting.