Is it true, as the arguer insisted, that the artist but the critic gives society something of lasting value? As far as I concerned, I partially concede this statement. There is no denying that the artist gives society something of lasting value, constructive criticism, however, not only can help the public to appreciate the artistic works but also can help the artists improve their works and give them some useful inspiration. Therefore, the view of my point is that the artist gives society lasting value and the critic, at the same time, also contributes to it a lot.
To begin with, there is no doubt that the artist contributes to society a host of things of lasting value by their artistic works. For individuals, the creative mind and the skillful works of these artists make our quotidian life more colourful and interesting. We usually enjoy these beautiful paintings, euphonious music, classic movies in the museum, theatre and any other places after our business time. We could learn the history of our country from these works created by artists and every story behind them which might give us inspiration to promote our own work levels. For society, a great artistic work is the symbol of a great period, which maybe express the spirit of this society or record a moving story to the offspring, spurring the society developing continually in a rapid way.
Admittedly, artists' works make our spare time colorful, the comments of the critics, however, also play an indelible role in giving society something of lasting value by help us to appreciate the artistic works. The critics, as its definition, is a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings and the like. That is to say, critics can help the public understand and interpret the artistic works, since their comment and evaluation of an artwork as a filter, which can effectively help us determine which art is worth our time and attention. As the "smile" explained by critics in the painting "Mona Lisa", critics who are familiar with a particular artist's works might have certain insights to these works which layperson would not. Furthermore, these comments and evaluation feedbacked by critics also might spur artists inspiration to create more greater artworks.
However, due to base on the judgment of critics' own, the evaluation of an artwork sometimes is somewhat out of its real value. Think about the situation that a critic might addresses a great comment to an artwork just because of his close relationship with the artist who creates this artwork in order to enhance the value of the artwork. So no one can deny that we ought to rule out the subjective elements of critical comment to evaluate the artistic works fairly.
To sum up, the artist and the critic all, who are supplement of each other, contribute our society a lot. All of the greatest artworks in history, which gives society
something of lasting value, are created by artists and evaluated by critics.
ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
In high civilization world, law is wide used everywhere today. when to ask a law justified or not, we hardly come to consensus due to different experience and different position. In my perspective, laws are significant but hard to divide them to just laws and unjust ones. We would not disobey unjust laws which we
consider them unfair to us other than change them through legal process.
Most people will be confused when they are asked what the just laws are. As a matter of a fact, a just law must contain the just legislation and just execution, which are the most obvious and indispensable to a fair law. On the one hand, whitout just legislation, there will be no constraint of personal behavior in the whole society, and then will arise the unstability of the country. No one can deny that they will be not ignited when the laws are unfair to their possessions or even their lives. On the other hand, laws are also unjustified when it is executed unfair. Let's think about these conditions, a good person was put into prison just because of unjustified execution, or a criminal was still out of law due to judge failed to execute him. It is no doubt that these cases will damage the stability of te society seriously. So just execution, personal view, is more significant to a just law.
What the standard, however, of just law is? It's absolutely no doubt that the standard of "just" should not and will not decide by our subjective judgement. In other words, law will lose its power of sanction if we judge it just by our subjective opinion. To the employers, for example, they may think that the laws which protect their profits are just. To the employee, yet, they may consider that the employers exploit them and most money their employers earn belongs to them, so they complain the law protects employers' profits is much unfair to them. If we disobey and resist unjust laws we confirmed, our society, we can imagine easily, will trap into confusion totally. The solution will be found to solving this contradiction only if we obey our laws firmly. As Agnew, 39th American Vice president, requiring that everyone should maintenance the juristic dignity of that society.
Admittedly, obeying laws is our responsibility. But laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible properly to take account of various circumstances, times, and place. With the rapid development, lots of technology have been invented. And at the same time, some new technology, such as embryo technology and clone research for human-being, will threaten us if we fail to improve them in a right way, so we have to legislate to restrain the usage of these technology after they are invented.
All in all, I firmly maintain that every one should obey laws whatever they are just or not. Please change it through legal process if someone consider he/she confront a unjust law. If so, we could have a stable and harmonious society.
发表于 2010-3-3 22:20:39
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
