issue144 个人第十篇 求求给点意见吧 快考了

yaopeng3778UID: 2606544

issue144 "It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value."
Do the artists give the society something of lasting value? Do the critics make a contribution to bring with society something of lasting value? Is it an undoubted reality that the work of both artists and critics result in something of lasting value in society? Opinions among people vary considerably in respect that they have obtained different experiences and conflicting values. As far as I am concerned，compared with artists, critics, persons who make evaluations related to art achievements such as novels, films, dramas, paintings, and so on, tend to serve as a more crucial role in giving society something of lasting value while there is no escaping the fact that artists' work makes an indelible contribution to bring with society something of lasting value.
To begin with, admittedly, I am inclined to agree with the speaker' s statement insofar as it is the creative minds and skillful works of artists that make people's quotidian life colorful and give society something of the enjoyment of aesthetics. After all, no one can deny the fact that people's daily is connected closely to artists' work. Meanwhile, art, in its broadest, is the expression of imagination and creativity which can give people a sense of beauty. A case in point is that it is the collection of Chopin's works which brought with people a series of lasting value as well as making people's daily life colorful.

Aside from what I have mentioned in the second paragraph, nevertheless, critics can not only exhume excellent artistic achievements but also help public understand and appreciate art from a better view. Obviously, many greatest works are those which have been evaluated by critics. Moreover, by adopting critics' comments, that people become aware of advantages and disadvantages of an artist' s work leads to understanding and appreciating the work more sufficiently. For instance, it was a critic's comment, making the work of Vincent van Gogh be celebrated in the world several years after he died. On the other hand, when facing with the paintings made by Vincent van Gogh, people appreciated it from different perspectives. Consequently, we can realize more true meanings of life from the painting.

Finally, another reason why I strongly believe critics act as a more definitive role than artist is that what can remind public to distinguish between which art is worth in our time and which art is not suitable for our time is a critic's evaluation of an art work. Actually, the works of critics who are familiar with particular artists are likely to have certain insights relevant to those artistic works which laymen cannot understand. Furthermore, critics seem to obtain special judgment to an artistic work. Thereby, it comes as no surprise that critics' comments are the best solution when facing with the issue that whether work of art is worthwhile in our time.
In conclusion, from what has been discussed above we can arrive at the consensus safely that what critics do is more decisive in giving society something of lasting value in spite of the contribution made by artists. Undeniably, it is high time that people had better convert their improper conception that critics are the ones whose interests are just criticizing artists' work all the time for the simple purpose of fulfilling their work.

smile_annieUID: 2689995

issue144 "It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value." Do the artists give the society something of  lasting value? Do the critics make a contribution to bring with society something of lasting value? Is it an undoubted reality that both the work of both artists and critics result in something of lasting value in society? Opinions among people vary considerably in respect that they have obtained different experiences and conflicting values. As far as I am concerned，comparing with artists  and critics, persons make evaluations related to art achievements such as novels, films, dramas, paintings, and so on, tend to serve (play is beter, i think )a more crucial role in giving society something of lasting value while there is no escaping the fact that artists' work makes an indelible contribution to bring with society something of lasting value. To begin with, admittedly, I am inclined to agree with the speaker' s statement insofar as it is the creative minds and skillful works of artists that make people's quotidian life colorful and give society something of the enjoyment of aesthetics. After all, no one can deny the fact that people's daily is connected closely to artists' work. Meanwhile, art, in its broadest, is the expression of imagination and creativity which can give people a sense of beauty. A case in point is that it is the collection of Chopin's works which brought (with不要) people a series of lasting value as well as making people's daily life colorful。 Aside from what I have mentioned in the second paragraph, nevertheless, critics can not only exhume excellent artistic achievements but also help public understand and appreciate art from an alternate view. Obviously, many greatest works are those which have been evaluated by critics. Moreover, by adopting critics' comments, that people become aware of advantages and disadvantages of an artist' s work leads to understanding and appreciating the work more sufficiently. For instance, it was a critic's comment, making the work of Vincent van Gogh be celebrated in the world several years after he died.  through critics' illustration, we can feel the eager for life from his painting. (list the advantage of critics is ok) Finally, another reason why I strongly believe critics act as a more definitive role than artist is that what can remind public to distinguish between which art is worth in our time and which art is not suitable for our time is a critic's evaluation of an art workActually, the works of critics who are familiar with particular artists are likely to have certain insights relevant to those artistic works which laymen cannot understand. Furthermore, critics seem to obtain special judgment to an artistic work. Thereby, it comes as no surprise that critics' comments are the best solution when facing with the issue that whether work of art is worthwhile in our time..( I donot think this reason is persuative. You have to consider that Van Gogh's works also did not be recognized by critics at that time) In conclusion, from what has been discussed above we can arrive at the consensus safely that what critics do is more decisive in giving society something of lasting value in spite of the contribution made by artists. Undeniably, it is high time that people had better convert their improper conception that critics are the ones whose interests are just criticizing artists' work all the time for the simple purpose of fulfilling their work. (why do you mention this point at last, for conclusion, I think it is better to emphasis why you support critics in the end)

收藏 分享 评分