ISSUE144 高频限时写~求拍（内附提纲）

给飞的回忆UID: 2793438

提纲：
观点：基本同意
1、艺术家确实给予了社会持久价值的东西，因为他们反映了人性。
例子：简奥斯丁的作品和贝多芬的作品
2、但是必须承认，评论家有时可以推动艺术的发展。
因为有些艺术不经评论家评论是很难吸引注意的。
有些艺术不经评论家评论是很难被理解的。
3、评论家有时也会被固有思想所左右，而对艺术产生负面影响。
例子：梵高和莫奈的作品。
4、结论：观点基本是对的，但是也忽略了一些评论家的正面影响。
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: 545
TIME: 00:37:21
DATE: 2010/4/8 16:28:54

Is it the artist not the critic who gives society something of lasting value, as the speaker claims? Basically, I agree with this statement. However, we have to admit that under certain circumstance, critic promote the development of art. Therefore, an all-round consideration is necessary while deciding whether this statement makes any sense.

First of all, there is no point to deny that artists provide society something of lasting value by meeting the spiritual demands of human beings. According to Wikipedia, art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect humanity, which features lasting value of the society. Artists create masterpieces which reflect human characteristics. Consider, for example, the novel "Pride and Prejudice"
by Jane Austen persuade women to pursue their true love. Moreover, Beethoven ,the German composer, give the voice through his masterpieces to the newly-emerged middle class and individualism during the French Revolution. By waking humanity in certain place, at certain times and under certain conditions, artists create a lot of masterpieces with lasting value and meet the spiritual needs of human beings.

Admittedly, sometimes it is critics who promote the development of art.
Without critics, a single masterpiece can hardly appeal wide viewing audience and readers. Furthermore, some masterpieces cannot be easily understood and accepted without appropriate criticism. In short ,without criticism, a single masterpiece can hardly render society something of lasting value, for the reason that they would even never have been accepted and recognized.

However, we have to admit that, critics do not create and give society something of lasting value by merely appreciate the artists' works. In the field of art, so called knowledge and experience do not play a vital role as they do in some other areas. Instead, creativity and innovation are two basic elements of the promotion of art. Accordingly, the value of critic might pale in comparison to the value of artist. Consequently, it is artist not critic who gives the society a variety of works of lasting value. What critic do is just appreciate them and express their opinion and understanding of particular pieces of art.

Essential as critics are, it is widely acknowledged that critics might carry some undesirable consequences for artists and even the field of art as a whole. For the reason that critics can easily be controlled by existed concept. Thus some masterpieces with sparkling ideas cannot be appreciated by critics. The apt illustrations involve the example of Van Gogh and Monet.
Because of their new ideas and non-conventional ways to express their feelings, their paintings were not widely accepted and understood by contemporary critics. For that matter, both of them suffered from poverty in their whole life. Yet, nowadays, no one would deny the magnificent contribution made by Van Gogh and Monet to the evolution of art.
To sum up, critics may by restrained by their visual angles. However,
inappropriate criticism from critics will possibly have a negative effect on the promotion of art.

As far as I have concerned, this statement is generally right. It is truly the artist, not the critic who gives society spiritual treasures with lasting value. In contrast, inappropriate criticism made by critics will have some negative effects on artists and even the promotion of the field of art.  However, it is evident that the speaker overlooks the positive effects carried by critists.

xiao.xinUID: 2682051

4.5- 5分

我要是不到40分钟能写这么多就不用愁了