[i习作temp] Issue 144 [复制链接]

xsr6064
UID??2312664

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 169
注册时间: 2007-3-12
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-31 23:23:16 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Issue 144
由于我是个大老粗，对艺术实在没有研究，所以参考了范文中的论点，见笑。不过语言例子是自己想的。

提纲：
para 1 : 提出观点
para 2 : 说明评论家的积极作用：帮助传播和理解艺术作品。
para 3 : 文章的第二部分开始，说明评论家对艺术的批评和过滤有时会不客观，导致艺术家的不公平待遇。
para 4 : 说明评论家的反馈可能会限制艺术家。
para 5 : 结论：评论家有其积极的一面，应该批判的吸收评论家的评论

words : 615 time : 限了，但是没限住，超过了1小时，具体超过多少未记

The critic are just like the shadow of the artist . In the long history of art development the controversy that whether artists or critics create the lasting value has never stopped . In my opinion , I agree with the statement that believe the art itself , not others , provide the essentially lasting value . However , it dose not mean that we can ignore the critic’s fuctions for both its positive and negative influence on art .

Unlike the scientific theories which need serious inference for their proving , creation of art works mostly depend on artists’ inspiration , imagination and even passion . Besides , nearly each piece of artwork has the distinct brand of its own era and cultrue . Yet just all these untouchable sources of art and different background of people would eventually become the barrier bewteen the artists and audiences , preventing them to accept and appriciate the art . So we need the critic , whose comments and explaination can give the untrained public a broader and further understanding of art works , rather than barely visual and acoustical impact . If we say that artists give the life and soul to art works , the critic would give art the language to communicate with commom people . Due to the effort of countless critics , we can now appriciate and inherit those wonderful masterpieces of art.

On the other hand , the negative influence of the critic is equally notable . As I see it , there are two respects . The first argument has to do with the so-called filter fuction that means that the critic can clear away bad art from the worthwhile , which should be used cautiously . Since the critic is usually on behave of a certain group of people , in order to gain benefits for themselves , it is inevitable that many of their criticism may distort the truth , and even defame artists , and such kind of evidences can be easily found in the history of art . Under the stress of the social bias resulted from the critic , many artists lived a tough life , and many prominent ones of their compositions were killed . Consider the tragedy of Mozart , or van gogh’s famous painting : “sunflower” , which is criticized as the result of his madness , because it did not obey any principles of the traditional drawing skills . Whereas , just these “rule breakers’ “ works are considered as the classics by critics today . Indeed , this changement of value also remind us that the critic can not give us the lasting value .

Secondly , to provide feedback to artists is another function of critics . I concede that some useful feedback can actually help artists to improve their compositions . But as what most artists agreed , feedbacks from critics can hardly serve to positive roles in their work , instead , they give principles to constrain artists . When artists concern with too many these principls , they may lose the fleeting impulse and inspiration , which is the essential of true art , and at last , their products would be a viable craft , but not artwork .

In sum , although the artists provde lasting values , the critic has its own positive functions in spreading those famous art works to public , and helping them to understand and appriciate art . However we can not entirely rely on the comments and explainations to judge any piece of art works , only through accepting those critisms critically , we can properly appriciate these precious weath of human being .

[ 本帖最后由 xsr6064 于 2007-8-1 10:34 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

scarf83
UID??2285995

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 358
注册时间: 2006-12-22
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2007-8-3 00:39:13 |只看该作者

The critic are(is)
just like the shadow of the artist . In the long history of art development the controversy that whether artists or critics create the lasting value has never stopped . In my opinion , I agree with the statement that believe the art itself , not others , provide the essentially lasting value . However , it dose not mean that we can ignore the critic’s fuctions for both its positive and negative influence on art .

Unlike the scientific theories which need serious inference for their proving , creation of art works mostly depend on artists’ inspiration , imagination and even passion . Besides , nearly each piece of artwork has the distinct brand of its own era and cultrue . Yet just all these untouchable sources of art and different background of people would eventually become the barrier bewteen the artists and audiences , preventing them to accept and appriciate the art . So we need the critic , whose comments and explaination can give the untrained public a broader and further understanding of art works , rather than barely visual and acoustical impact . If we say that artists give the life and soul to art works , the critic would give art the language to communicate with commom people . Due to the effort of countless critics , we can now appriciate and inherit those wonderful masterpieces of art.

On the other hand , the negative influence of the critic is equally notable . As I see it , there are two respects(aspects) .
The first argument has to do with the so-called filter fuction that means that the critic can clear away bad art from the worthwhile , which should be used cautiously . Since the critic is usually on behave(behalf)
of a certain group of people , in order to gain benefits for themselves , it is inevitable that many of their criticism may distort the truth , and even defame artists , and such kind of evidences can be easily found in the history of art . Under the stress of the social bias resulted from the critic , many artists lived a tough life , and many prominent ones of their compositions were killed . Consider the tragedy of Mozart , or van gogh’s famous painting : “sunflower” , which is criticized as the result of his madness , because it did not obey any principles of the traditional drawing skills . Whereas , just these “rule breakers’ “ works are considered as the classics by critics today . Indeed , this changement of value also remind us that the critic can not give us the lasting value .

Secondly , to provide feedback to artists is another function of critics . I concede that some useful feedback can actually help artists to improve their compositions . But as what most artists agreed , feedbacks from critics can hardly serve to (be) positive roles in their work , instead , they give principles to constrain artists . When artists concern with(are concerned with)
too many these principls , they may lose the fleeting impulse and inspiration , which is the essential of true art , and at last , their products would be a viable craft , but not artwork .

In sum , although the artists provde lasting values , the critic has its own positive functions in spreading those famous art works to public , and helping them to understand and appriciate art . However we can not entirely rely on the comments and explainations to judge any piece of art works , only through accepting those critisms critically , we can properly appriciate these precious weath of human being .

我感觉你写的挺好的，很多好的词组和句子的用法，观点也挺清晰的，就是字数太多了，呵呵
我也就挑了些表面的错误

使用道具举报