issue144 G-89-互助社-05日同主题写作 艺术家和艺术批评家

keeyangUID: 2120118

ISSUE 144
题目

It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.
critic: a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.

提纲：
1） critic给社会持久价值
2）艺术作品是由艺术家创造的，但是单单艺术品的存在没有价值，只有社会承认才有价值，社会在你的作品上可以有新的创造，你的作品才有持久价值
3）一些作品社会开始不能接受，需要批评家来解释作品
4）开始艺术家本人也不完全理解作品，需要批评家来发现作品的深刻内涵
5）总结

正文

The speaker asserts that artist gives the society of lasting value, while critic not. It seems apparent because it the artist who created the art itself. However, in my view, in the eyes of the society it is the critic who shows the value of an art to the society.

Admittedly, the artist produces the work; however the existence of a work itself has no value to the society. When and only when the society comes to recognize, appreciate it, can the value of the art manifests. Moreover, only when the society begin to recreate new value based on the original art, its lasting value appears. Think that, the earth produces petroleum during its development, yet when buried in the earth, petroleum is of no value to human. It is the worker that realise its value via exploiting and refinement. Similarly, the real value of a art is often buried at first. There are two kind of different  cases.

First, after the birth of a masterpiece, the society ususlly lacks sensitiveness to notice it, let alone to appreciate it. However, by virtue of his special knowledge in the art field, critic may sense its innovation and creativity, and interpret it in a understandable way to the society. There is no better example then Vinect Van Gogh. Though he painted numerous painting, Gogh sold only one of them until his death at 37. Few people knew about his paintings, and of course he did not received any reputation as a great painter. However, many years later when the critics introduce his excellent paintings to the punlic, the art circle was shocked and begun to collect and study those works. One of them -"Portrait of Doctor" -was auctioned at 82.5 million dollars. What's more, modern artist absorb virous ideas and invovitons from his work, propeled the impressionnism to a higher level. Without critic, his works was still a pile of valueless papers in a library.

Second, not only the society but also the artist himself or herself cannot fully understand his/her work. Some one may oppose this statement by insisting if the artist cannot not understand his own work, then how he create it? Despite its strangeness, this is a common phenonmena in the art field as well as in science. For instance, mathematicians work out mathematics, however it is physician who know its true value in explaining the material world. Considering the artist's limitation in time and specific knowledge, he may also lacks the ability to master his work's profound meaning. According the spanish literature history, Saiwantisi's famous novel "Don Quixote" was regarded no more than a farce at all at beginning and Saiwantisi himself commented (and I paraphase):"I write this novel just to sacaritize those knight tales."  Nevertheless, about 100 years later, people begun to evaluate this novel as a great work that predicates the boom of romanticism in literature during the 19th century. Don Quixote was no longer viewed as a buffon  with queer ideas, instead he became a hero with with great character of faithfulness, integrity, and nobility, though sometimes unrealistic. Who brought about this conversion? Obviously not Saiwantisi. This contribution should be attribute to several critics  such as Byron and Heine. It was their creative critique that enriched the connotation of the work, and bestowed a lasting value to it.

In sum, I concede that without artist the critic cannot produce any value at all and that sometime critic is counteractive in the artist creation, however as demonsraed above, it is through the critic's eyes that that society recognize an art, thus it is the critic who presents a lasting a value.

polymathUID: 179557

先占座！呵呵！谢谢你的批改！:)

polymathUID: 179557

The speaker asserts that artist gives the society of lasting value, while critic not. It seems apparentapparent显然的，感觉没有reasonable有道理的好！ because it the artist who created the art itself. However, in my view, in the eyes of the society it is the critic who shows the value of an art to the society.开头点明观点，很好！

Admittedly, the artist produces the work; however the existence of a work itself has no value to the society. When and only when the society comes to recognize, appreciate it, can the value of the art manifests. 你这样的意思好像和常理相反啊！没有需要那有艺术创作。它的价值在产生之前就已经存在了！按照你的逻辑，艺术家不创造了！因为它还要经过其他人的认可，这好像不太公平！嘿嘿！也许我也是狡辩！:DMoreover, only when the society begin to recreate new value based on the original art, its lasting value appears. Think that, the earth produces petroleum during its development, yet when buried in the earth, petroleum is of no value to human. It is the worker that realise its value via exploiting and refinement. Similarly, the real value of a art is often buried at first. There are two kind of different  cases.

First, after the birth of a masterpiece, the society ususlly lacks sensitiveness to notice it, let alone to appreciate it. However, by virtue of his special knowledge in the art field, critic may sense its innovation and creativity, and interpret it in a understandable way to the society. There is no better example then Vinect Van Gogh. Though he painted numerous painting, Gogh sold only one of them until his death at 37. Few people knew about his paintings, and of course he did not received any reputation as a great painter. However, many years later when the critics introduce his excellent paintings to the punlic, the art circle was shocked and begun to collect and study those works. One of them -"Portrait of Doctor" -was auctioned 加个even吧！at 82.5 million dollars. What's more, modern artists absorb virousvarious of ideas and invovitons写错了吧？innovations from his work, propeled and therefore propellsthe impressionnism to a higher level. Without critic, his works was still a pile of valueless papers in a library. 例子和论点结合的比较好！分析的也很透彻！注意一些拼写错误！

Second, not only the society but also the artist himself or herself cannot fully understand his/her work. Some one may oppose this statement by insisting if the artist cannot not understand his own work, then how he create it? Despite its strangeness, this is a common phenonmena in the art field as well as in science. For instance, mathematicians work out mathematics, however it is physician who know its true value in explaining the material world. Considering the artist's limitation in time and specific knowledge, he may also lacks the ability to master his work's profound meaning. According the spanish literature history, Saiwantisi's famous novel "Don Quixote" was regarded no more than a farce at all at beginning and Saiwantisi himself commented (and I paraphase):"I write this novel just to sacaritize those knight tales."  Nevertheless, about 100 years later, people begun to evaluate this novel as a great work that predicates the boom of romanticism in literature during the 19th century. Don Quixote was no longer viewed as a buffon  with queer ideas, instead he became a hero with with great character of faithfulness, integrity, and nobility, though sometimes unrealistic. Who brought about this conversion? Obviously not Saiwantisi. This contribution should be attribute to several critics  such as Byron and Heine. It was their creative critique that enriched the connotation of the work, and bestowed a lasting value to it. 写的太好了！用物理学家发现数学家计算出数学题的类比，切入到评论家发现了艺术的潜在价值和未来价值，十分巧妙！例子用得也非常好！

In sum, I concede that without artist the critic cannot produce any value at all and that sometime critic is counteractive in the artist creation, however as demonsraed above, it is through the critic's eyes that that society recognize an art, thus it is the critic who presents a lasting a value.结尾画龙点睛！

总评：好！:victory:我觉得一个字就够了！真佩服你的写作水平已经达到如此高度。驾驭语言和逻辑分析的能力都非常不错！是限时写的吗/如果是！应该可以在5分之上了！

[ Last edited by polymath on 2005-8-7 at 22:37 ]