[Big Fish]03月10日Issue144--By swolf54

swolf54UID: 2421931

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.

          Artist or critic: who gives society something of lasting value? Some people claim that artists are those provide the lasing value for the reason that they are the ones who create the art works. Otherwise, others advance the idea that critic are ones who give the society lasting value for the great jobs- criticizing and revealing profound meanings of art works so that people can get better understanding of the art works- they have done. So far as I'm concerned, as increasing difficulty in understanding art works and the brilliant works artist have brought to us, it calls for a balance between artist and critic.
         Undeniably, without artist, the most lasting and profound would never come into being. Since artist are more sensible and observe the world more carefully than common people, they can catch the very feelings that fleet but never noticed by common ones. This talent endow them the ability to compose the most beautiful music, draw the most beautiful pictures and write the most touching novels, which reveal the inner beauty of the world and inspire people. For example, looking at Van Gogh's "Sun flower", you will feel the passion and vigorousness of life; listening to Michael Jackson's music, you will notice the love of mankind; reading the novels “The Catcher in the Rye”, you can notice the young generation's (adolescent) impulse of rebellion, which strikes a chord in readers’ mind. In other words, it is the artist who gives the world so many excellent works that makes the world more exciting and beautiful.
        At the same time, however, because many art works are abstract and obscure, without relevant training and talent, it is hard for the majority to understand the profound thought by themselves. In such circumstances, in order to spread the meaning of art works and make them be accepted by the majority, society needs critics to reveal and explain the inner spirit of each art works. With critic's help, common people could truly get close to the great art works and understand the deep thought in them. As to my own experience, with the help of critics by Romain Roland- the famous critic and novelist of 20th century- wrote myriad critic works concerning about 19th century's music, I get better understanding of the master pieces during that period.
      Besides, with professional knowledge and plenty of experience, critics also tell good works from inferior ones. Thus they could find works that have lasting value to human society. Within the field that they are familiar with, they could get better understanding of the works that a labyrinth could not. As the art work industry is full of different level of artist, through the filter of art critics, truly lasting and profound value could be reserved and last long in history. For example, a newly published work may be just an emended copy of previous works, only critics that have accumulated knowledge about this work could find the true factor of it.
     In conclusion, as artist and critic function different in human society, both of them contribute in giving the society art works of lasting value. Therefore, both of them should be respected by the society.

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

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.

          Artist or critic: who gives society something of lasting value? Some people claim that artists are those provide the lasing value for the reason that they are the ones who create the art works. Otherwise, others advance the idea that critic are ones who give the society lasting value for the great jobs- criticizing and revealing profound meanings of art works so that people can get better understanding of the art works- they have done. So far as I'm concerned, as increasing difficulty in understanding art works and (that) the brilliant works artists have brought to us, it calls for a balance between artist and critic. balance体现在那?
         Undeniably, without artist(s), the most lasting and profound would never come into being. Since artist(s) are more sensible and observe the world more carefully than common people, they can catch the very feelings that fleet (good word!) but never noticed by common ones. This talent endow them the ability to compose the most beautiful music, draw the most beautiful pictures and write the most touching novels, which reveal the inner beauty of the world and inspire people. For example, looking at Van Gogh's "Sun flower", you will feel the passion and vigorousness of life; listening to Michael Jackson's music, you will notice the love of mankind; reading the novels “The Catcher in the Rye”, you can notice the young generation's (adolescent) impulse of rebellion, which strikes a chord in readers’ mind. (其实最后的which可以不要, 这样排比结构更完美)In other words, it is the artist who gives the world so many excellent works that makes the world more exciting and beautiful.
        At the same time, however,(at the same time就有转折的意思了,用一个however或at the same time 就够了.) because many art works are abstract and obscure, without relevant training and talent, it is hard for the majority to understand the profound thought by themselves. In such circumstances, in order to spread the meaning of art works and make them be accepted by the majority, society needs critics to reveal and explain the inner spirit of each art works. With critic's help, common people could truly get close to the great art works and understand the deep thought in them. As to my own experience, with the help of critics by Romain Roland- the famous critic and novelist of 20th century- wrote myriad critic works concerning about 19th century's music, I get better understanding of the master pieces during that period.楼主能找到这个Romain Rolland,还真历害啊,我找了半天都没找到一个像样的评论家. 不过楼主写错了人名,少了个l, 是Romain Rolland
      Besides, with professional knowledge and plenty of experience, critics also tell good works(good works 有charity 的意思,考虑到后面用了inferior, 前面为什么不用superior呢?) from inferior ones. Thus they could find works that have lasting value to human society. Within the field that they are familiar with, they could get better understanding of the works that a labyrinth could not. As the art work industry is full of different level of artist, through the filter of art critics, (good word) truly lasting and profound value could be reserved and last long in history. For example, a newly published work may be just an emended copy of previous works, only critics that have accumulated knowledge about this work could find the true factor of it.
     In conclusion, as artist and critic function different in human society, both of them contribute in giving the society art works of lasting value. Therefore, both of them should be respected by the society.



楼主文章写得很不错了,语言也多样化了,思想也很连贯. 要是be fastidious,我想楼主用的例子能找点别人不用的就更好了,像Van Gogh这些如果可以用其实代替,那就更perfect了!