issue144 [OB小组] 第9次作业 批评家,艺术家

xiao8686UID: 2266881

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist,not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

*a person who evaluates works of art, suchas novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 639          TIME: 00:44:44+20:00         DATE: 2007-7-21 18:03:14

In this issue, the author states that the artist instead of the critic gives society something with lasting value. I fundamentally agree with the author. As far as I am concerned, both artists and critics contributed to the externalization of great works though the artists should be credited far more than critics. It can be reflected clearly in the two major functions of critics.

First of all, one major function of critics is sifting the works among countless ones. Therefore, the outstanding masterpieces can be extinguished soon. Sequentially, people can able to save lots of time in seeking for the extraordinary works with merits to appreciate. Eventually, those great works are passed down by generations, inscribed in the history and entitled with the masterpieces of lasting value. And critics who have the professional knowledge and perspectives do play an indispensable role in such process. However, the critic may also exert some negative effects on it as well. As we know, it is impossible for human including a critic to evaluate a piece of work utterly objective. Thus prejudices and discrimination can hinder the critics from extinguishing some outstanding masterpiece or cause critics to underrate them. For example, the 19th century critics used to view the black novel backgrounded in the conflicts of politics, paying little attention to their literary values. Until many years ago, people started to re-evaluate those novels, discovered the remarkable literary merits in them. For another example, Vincent Van Gogh’s famous work sunflower was once considered an obscured painting. No critics viewed highly this masterpiece till the death of the genius painter. Clearly, critics can be readily blocked by their prejudices, the current notions and so forth. They can not guarantee to swift every masterpiece among the-mediocre and the dross.

Second of all, another major function of critics is commenting and interpreting works of artists. With the assistance of the explanations, people who are strange to a certain piece of work can readily know the work, benefiting the further understanding of it. Notwithstanding, for most of art works, whatever are novels, paintings, or music, the best approach to understand and appreciate them is through the direct contact with them, without any exterior interventions. The appreciation is a visceral feeling and impulse while seeing or hearing the work for the first time. However, the commentary of critics may distort the would-be original impression of an art work. Moreover, the understanding of an art work ought to differ from people to people since our individual differences. However, the perspectives of critics inevitably put some compulsory force on an art work, leading our own interpretations toward one direction. Such effects of critics could only impair the charm of a work, result a work become less memorable and valuable. In sum, the interpretations of critics though provide short cuts for laymen to know art works harm the appreciations of different individuals toward them.

Nevertheless, the artist, the one who creates the masterpieces with their genius thoughts and inspirations is the source of all the great works with lasting values. Without them, there would be no works for the critic to evaluate at all. Besides, many great works, even without critics, can be remembered easily by people, such as the Chinese embroidery and the Chinese traditional painting, which were created long before the appearance of critics. Furthermore, the folk arts which critics hardly evaluate are also the art with lasting values. For instance, the Italian ballads, Chinese paper cutting, Japanese mud-moppet and so forth---the crystallization of human wisdom, are eternalized in human history without critics. Therefore, the contributions of artists are much greater than that of critics.

In conclusion, both artists and critics should be attributed to giving society something of lasting values. Nevertheless, it is eventually artists the decisive and necessary factor in the process of externalizing art works.

ldongxpUID: 2311083

In this issue, the author states that the artist instead of the critic gives society something with lasting value. I fundamentally agree with the author. As far as I am concerned, both artists and critics contributed to the externalization of great works though the artists should be credited far more than critics. It can be reflected clearly in the two major functions of critics.

First of all, one major function of critics is sifting the works among countless ones. Therefore, the outstanding masterpieces can be extinguished [distinguished?] soon. Sequentially, people can [are] able to save lots of time in seeking for the extraordinary works with merits to appreciate. Eventually, those great works are passed down by generations, inscribed in the history and entitled with the masterpieces of lasting value. And critics who have the professional knowledge and perspectives do play an indispensable role in such process. However, the critic may also exert some negative effects on it as well. As we know, it is impossible for human including a critic to evaluate a piece of work utterly objective. Thus prejudices and discrimination can hinder the critics from extinguishing some outstanding masterpiece or cause critics to underrate them. For example, the 19th century critics used to view the black novel backgrounded in the conflicts of politics, paying little attention to their literary values. Until many years ago, people started to re-evaluate those novels, discovered the remarkable literary merits in them. For another example, Vincent Van Gogh’s famous work sunflower was once considered an obscured painting. No critics viewed highly this masterpiece till the death of the genius painter. Clearly, critics can be readily blocked by their prejudices, the current notions and so forth. They can not guarantee to sift every masterpiece among the-mediocre and the dross.
[赞，辩证的论述，不知道有没有必要分成两段，你考虑一下]

Second of all, another major function of critics is commenting and interpreting works of artists. With the assistance of the explanations, people who are strange to a certain piece of work can readily know the work, benefiting the further understanding of it. Notwithstanding, for most of art works, whatever are novels, paintings, or music, the best approach to understand and appreciate them is through the direct contact with them, without any exterior interventions. The appreciation is a visceral feeling and impulse while seeing or hearing the work for the first time. However, the commentary of critics may distort the would-be original impression of an art work. Moreover, the understanding of an art work ought to differ from people to people since our individual differences. However, the perspectives of critics inevitably put some compulsory force on an art work, leading our own interpretations toward one direction. Such effects of critics could only impair the charm of a work, result a work become less memorable and valuable. In sum, the interpretations of critics though provide short cuts for laymen to know art works harm the appreciations of different individuals toward them.

Nevertheless, the artist, the one who creates the masterpieces with their genius thoughts and inspirations is the source of all the great works with lasting values. Without them, there would be no works for the critic to evaluate at all. Besides, many great works, even without critics, can be remembered easily by people, such as the Chinese embroidery and the Chinese traditional painting, which were created long before the appearance of critics. Furthermore, the folk arts which critics hardly evaluate are also the art with lasting values. For instance, the Italian ballads, Chinese paper cutting, Japanese mud-moppet and so forth---the crystallization of human wisdom, are eternalized in human history without critics. Therefore, the contributions of artists are much greater than that of critics.
In conclusion, both artists and critics should be attributed to giving society something of lasting values. Nevertheless, it is eventually artists the decisive and necessary factor in the process of externalizing art works.

[没太多说的，思想辩证性很强，表达也很好,再接再厉啦
PS: 你是写完再改，还是后边接着写完？]

xiao8686UID: 2266881

我是写不完...接着再写的

这一次写到nevertheless的时候，时间就到了...汗

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

In this issue, the author states that the artist instead of the critic gives society something with lasting value. I fundamentally agree with the author. As far as I am concerned, both artists and critics contributed to the externalization of great works though the artists should be credited far more than critics(我就是想这样表达,高!). It can be reflected clearly in the two major functions of critics.

First of all, one major function of critics is sifting the works among countless ones. Therefore, the outstanding masterpieces can be extinguished soon(这里是要表达好的作品被选出来的意思吧??EXTINGUISH这里好像不准确). Sequentially, people can able(重复了) to save lots of time in seeking for the extraordinary works with merits to appreciate. Eventually, those great works are passed down by generations, inscribed in the history and entitled with the masterpieces of lasting value. And critics who have the professional knowledge and perspectives do play an indispensable role in such process. However, the critic may also exert some negative effects on it as well. As we know, it is impossible for human including a critic to evaluate a piece of work utterly objective. Thus prejudices and discrimination can hinder the critics from extinguishing some outstanding masterpiece or cause critics to underrate them. For example, the 19th century critics used to view the black novel backgrounded in the conflicts of politics, paying little attention to their literary values. Until many years ago, people started to re-evaluate those novels, discovered the remarkable literary merits in them. For another example, Vincent Van Gogh’s famous work sunflower was once considered an obscured painting. No critics viewed highly this masterpiece till the death of the genius painter. Clearly, critics can be readily blocked by their prejudices, the current notions and so forth. They can not guarantee to swift every masterpiece among the-mediocre and the dross.

Second of all, another major function of critics is commenting and interpreting works of artists. With the assistance of the explanations, people who are strange to a certain piece of work can readily know the work, benefiting the further understanding of it. Notwithstanding, for most of art works, whatever are novels, paintings, or music, the best way to approach to understand and appreciate them is through the direct contact with them, without any exterior interventions. The appreciation is a visceral feeling and impulse while seeing or hearing the work for the first time. However, the commentary of critics may distort the would-be original impression of an art work. Moreover, the understanding of an art work ought to differ from people to people since our individual differences. However, the perspectives of critics inevitably put some compulsory force on an art work, leading our own interpretations toward one direction. Such effects of critics could only impair the charm of a work, result a work become less memorable and valuable. In sum, the interpretations of critics though provide short cuts for laymen to know art works harm the appreciations of different individuals toward them. (这段怎么总体上感觉是在说CRITICS的不好之处??)

Nevertheless, the artist, the one who creates the masterpieces with their genius thoughts and inspirations is the source of all the great works with lasting values. Without them, there would be no works for the critic to evaluate at all. Besides, many great works, even without critics, can be remembered easily by people, such as the Chinese embroidery and the Chinese traditional painting, which were created long before the appearance of critics. Furthermore, the folk arts which critics hardly evaluate are also the art with lasting values. For instance, the Italian ballads, Chinese paper cutting, Japanese mud-moppet and so forth---the crystallization of human wisdom, are eternalized in human history without critics. Therefore, the contributions of artists are much greater than that of critics.

In conclusion, both artists and critics should be attributed to giving society something of lasting values. Nevertheless, it is eventually artists the decisive and necessary factor in the process of externalizing art works.

总体上,按第一段结为的说法,倒数第三段应该是说CRITICS的FUNCTION的,但是好像走远了,而且,为什么结论是aritsts the decisive factor,却要花2段来还说CRITICS的功能呢??我觉得可以先让步说CRITICS的功能,然后再多说些东西来印证aritsts the decisive factor,呵呵,都是我的个人观点哈~!
BTW,XIAO8686的文章读起来总是费力(生词生僻表达多)却如沐春风的(能学到很多东西) :)

xiao8686UID: 2266881

那个 extinguished 错了， 是distinguished，汗....

我就是想从critic的两个主要的function着手，说这两个功能虽然有点用，其实也不是什么很牛。第三段再说artist才牛。

呵呵，跟北美范文学的，他上面说的比较绝对，说critic就是很废，几个作用都很废，然后说critic没什么用.

OB叔UID: 188695

占座

OB叔UID: 188695

In this issue, the author states that the artist instead of the critic gives society something with lasting value. I fundamentally agree with the author. As far as I am concerned, both artists and critics contributed to the externalization of great works though the artists should be credited far more than critics. It can be reflected clearly in the two major functions of critics.开头很简洁，论述很清楚

First of all, one major function of critics is sifting the works among countless ones. Therefore, the outstanding masterpieces can be extinguished 【这个词对吗？】soon. Sequentially, people can able to save lots of time in seeking for the extraordinary works with merits to appreciate. Eventually, those great works are passed down by generations, inscribed in the history and entitled with the masterpieces of lasting value.转接词用很好 And critics who have the professional knowledge and perspectives do play an indispensable role in such process. However, the critic may also exert some negative effects on it as well. As we know, it is impossible for human including a critic to evaluate a piece of work utterly objective. Thus prejudices and discrimination can hinder the critics from extinguishing some outstanding masterpiece or cause critics to underrate them. For example, the 19th century critics used to view the black novel backgrounded in the conflicts of politics, paying little attention to their literary values. Until many years ago, people started to re-evaluate those novels, discovered the remarkable literary merits in them. For another example, Vincent Van Gogh’s famous work sunflower was once considered an obscured painting. No critics viewed highly this masterpiece till the death of the genius painter. Clearly, critics can be readily blocked by their prejudices, the current notions and so forth. They can not guarantee to swift every masterpiece among the-mediocre and the dross.这一段是完美的论证，6分

Second of all【有这种用法吗？】, another major function of critics is commenting and interpreting works of artists. With the assistance of the explanations, people who are strange to a certain piece of work can readily know the work, benefiting the further understanding of it. Notwithstanding, for most of art works, whatever are novels, paintings, or music, the best approach to understand and appreciate them is through the direct contact with them, without any exterior interventions. The appreciation is a visceral feeling and impulse while seeing or hearing the work for the first time. However, the commentary of critics may distort the would-be original impression of an art work. Moreover, the understanding of an art work ought to differ from people to people since our individual differences. However, the perspectives of critics inevitably put some compulsory force on an art work, leading our own interpretations toward one direction. Such effects of critics could only impair the charm of a work, result a work become less memorable and valuable. In sum, the interpretations of critics though provide short cuts for laymen to know art works harm the appreciations of different individuals toward them. 这一段如果有举例就更好了

Nevertheless, the artist, the one who creates the masterpieces with their genius thoughts and inspirations is the source of all the great works with lasting values. Without them, there would be no works for the critic to evaluate at all. Besides, many great works, even without critics, can be remembered easily by people, such as the Chinese embroidery and the Chinese traditional painting, which were created long before the appearance of critics. Furthermore, the folk arts which critics hardly evaluate are also the art with lasting values. For instance, the Italian ballads, Chinese paper cutting, Japanese mud-moppet and so forth---the crystallization of human wisdom, are eternalized in human history without critics. Therefore, the contributions of artists are much greater than that of critics.又是完美的一段

In conclusion, both artists and critics should be attributed to giving society something of lasting values. Nevertheless, it is eventually artists the decisive and necessary factor in the process of externalizing art works.

小结：5.5分的作文