[i习作temp] Issue144 请指正~有拍必回 [复制链接]

vitamin_c
UID：2366079

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 117
注册时间: 2007-7-19
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-1 23:31:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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: 546       TIME: 上午 12:45:00       DATE: 2007-8-1

The speaker contends that there is nothing about lasting value given by critics, but by artist.  Although some merits of the critics cannot be denied, I am still convinced that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side, for the following reasons.

Admittedly, the critics, equipped with certain knowledge and background sensitivity of arts, sometimes might be able to give the society something of last value.  Experts point out that the critics service for a society, by help laypeople to appreciate the artwork, to distinguish the good and bad products of artists, and to advance the creation of artists through their instructive comments. However, just in the contribution of critics, also lies the limitation why it can not be recognized as a source of eternal value for our society. As the celebrated British critic and poet, Thomas S. Eliot once said, "between the idea and the reality, the motion and the act, falls the shadow." Then comments and critiques from critics serve as this shadow, by pointing out how the sparks of creation of this artist are presented in front of its audiences. Therefore, as a supplement and subordinate , critics sometimes help arts to achieve its goal of creating lasting values.

But even to this extent, the critics are, more often than not, not doing very well to attain positive function to the advance of arts. There are abundant instances in which critics are fail to give the artists correct feedback, as well as examples in which critics mislead the mass to understand a artwork. Consider, the mean critiques from those so-called experts, which great artist Vincent Van Gogh suffered during his whole life, and the subsequently poverty and mental disarrangement.  Brilliant minds in artists are often underrated by critics, just because a simple reason, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Artworks serve as the communication between artist and the beholder--visitors, consumers, and readers--while the position of critics, who wants to act as interpretation and introduction, in this communication are usually meaningless.

After all, in most situations, it is the artists, not the critics, who gives society something of lasting value. Numerous great artists are remembered and respected for their everlasting products. These artworks have not only created the symbol of constant beauty that we human pursuits all over the time, but also cherished the values and emotions of a certain society to the ancestors. An apt illustration to this point involves the famous artist Picasso. When Spain was under the region of Nazi, a great number of innocent people were murdered by the bombing, but no one dare to speak out their hate to Nazi and the sympathy to the dead. By his abstract painting, Picasso conserved this emotions of his society on that time, and made this values go around over the world, extending the time. Without the urn of arts, how can we cherished those profound emotions and great achievement of the previous societies?

To sum up, as the supplement of arts, critics do conduct positive effect to arts in some conditions, therefore helping to create some last values. But in most situations, it is artists, instead of critics, who give us something to cherished, and to become the everlasting value of a society to pass down.

回应
0

使用道具举报

doris_gxc
UID：2370933

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 612
注册时间: 2007-7-28
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2007-8-2 09:50:43 |只看该作者

The speaker contends that there is nothing about lasting value given by critics, but by artist. Although some merits of the critics cannot be denied, I am still convinced that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side, for the following reasons.（开头表明观点是主正的）
（第一段让步，评论的积极作用）
Admittedly, the critics, equipped with certain knowledge and background sensitivity of arts, sometimes might be able to give the society something of last value. （sometimes something这样的词最好少用，换成更具体的） Experts point out that the critics service（serve） for a(删a) society,(删逗号) by help（-ing） laypeople(凡人) to appreciate the artwork, to distinguish the good and bad products of artists, and to (凡人是advance的逻辑主语吗)advance the creation of artists through their instructive comments. However, just in the contribution of critics（有chinglish的嫌疑）, also lies the limitation why（思维跳跃，什么样的限制说明什么，而他解释了……） it can not be recognized as a source of eternal value for our society. As the celebrated British critic and poet, Thomas S. Eliot once said, "between the idea and the reality, the motion and the act, falls the shadow." Then comments and critiques from critics serve as this shadow, by pointing out how the sparks of creation of this artist are presented in front of its audiences. Therefore, as a supplement and subordinate, critics sometimes help arts to achieve its goal of creating lasting values.
（第二段反驳，评论的负面作用）
But even to this extent, the critics are, more often than not, not doing very well to attain positive function to the advance of arts. There are abundant instances in which critics are fail to give the artists correct feedback, as well as examples in which critics mislead the mass to understand a artwork. Consider, the mean critiques from those so-called experts, which great artist Vincent Van Gogh suffered during his whole life, and the subsequently poverty and mental disarrangement. Brilliant minds in（of） artists are often underrated by critics, just because a simple reason, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Artworks serve as the communication between artist and the beholder--visitors, consumers, and readers--while the position of critics, who wants to act as interpretation and introduction, in this communication are usually meaningless.（为什么meaningless）其实我和你有一样的毛病，写着写着就像搞个升华什么，或者是因为写的过程中自己又有了新的认识吧。但是一定不能太发散了，把一开始想到的东西论述清楚就好。

（第三段，art/artist的作用）
After all, in most situations, it is the artists, not the critics, who gives society something of lasting value. Numerous great artists are remembered and respected for their everlasting products. These artworks have not only created the symbol of constant beauty that we human pursuits all over the time, but also （主语是artworks吗）cherished the values and emotions of a certain society to the ancestors. An apt illustration to this point involves the famous artist Picasso. When Spain was under the region of Nazi, a great number of innocent people were murdered by the bombing, but no one dare to speak out their hate to Nazi and the sympathy to the dead. By his abstract painting, Picasso conserved this emotions of his society on that time, and made this values go around over the world, extending the time.（难道是在说Guernica） Without the urn of arts, how can we cherished those profound emotions and great achievement of the previous societies?（最好更着重说artist的作用）

To sum up, as the supplement of arts, critics do conduct positive effect to arts in some conditions, therefore helping to create some last values. But in most situations, it is artists, instead of critics, who give us something to cherished, and to become the everlasting value of a society to pass down.

本文中用到的例子：
Thomas Stearns Eliot, OM (September 26, 1888 – January 4, 1965), was a poet, dramatist and literary critic. He received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1948. He wrote the poems "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", The Waste Land, "The Hollow Men", "Ash Wednesday", and Four Quartets; the plays Murder in the Cathedral and The Cocktail Party; and the essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent". Eliot was born an American, moved to the United Kingdom in 1914 (at the age of 25), and became a British subject in 1927 at the age of 39.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Eliot

使用道具举报