issue 144 互拍。。离考试还有17天，我开始悸动了。。

费话先生UID: 2788924

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.




The author claims that the artist rather than critic gives society something of external and universal value. Since the arts is a form for artists to provide beauty, pleasure and expressions of some private feelings, so whether a work of art such as a painting, a piece of music or a film is valuable or not relies on the talents of artists. From this point of view, I agree that artists are the most important factor to decide the value of a work of art. But it is unfair to exclude all merits of critics, since the critics also play an important though not indispensable role to help artists to give the future generation some lasting value.

The lasting value of arts can be definite as something worthy to be permanent. We feel it pleasure to see a great comedy like “Amelie” which removes us from the daily chaos. We also bathed ourselves in the calm beautiful paintings such as a seascape painting. Moreover, some expressions including the revelation of the then society or moral instructions, all provide us with rich sources to know what our human's have suffered or what accomplished we have achieved and inherited. All these will not disappear along with the death of artists or critics.


As I mention above, it is artists rather than critics that create those immortal art works full of beauty, pleasure and some expressions of their own. Without artists, any elaborate evaluation of art works is merely a castle in the air. We can ignore how New York Times appraise Spielberg’s films, but we cannot miss any chance to watch his film. Many people would agree that a great movie is far more important than the appraisement published on a certain column. Similarly, if there had no Van Gogh, there must had no “sunflower”, while if no critics in Van Gogh’s time, we still could appreciate the excellent painting. Thus, the artists can offer the society some lasting value without the participant of critic, but the critic cannot otherwise.
Moreover, it is artists not critics determine the internal value of an art work. To a large measure, how critics depreciate a certain great work will not impede us to enjoy it. For example, the titanic film, although a lot of critics have a strong opposition against it, we still burst into tears when jack saved rose in sacrifice of his own life. On the contrary, a volume of weak engravings, no matter how critics praise it，it will not provide us with entertainment or beauty. So, the artists should be most credited since they instead of critics decide the value of an art work, while what critics has said has nothing to do with the value of arts.



Although I agree that artists create the work the arts, we cannot ignore the merits of critics though they are secondarily important. First, they help artists to create more valuable works. Their critiques or reviews help artists to find their own defects and hence improve them afterwards. Some great critics such as Susannek Langer bring about many innovational theories on arts. Indeed, her books describing how to make criteria to determine the value of arts have regarded as beautiful literatures. Moreover, the critics still play an important role to the dissemination of arts. They guide the ordinary people to better know about the external meaning of arts. Without critics, there may be fewer people to realize the emotions embedded in Picasso’s abstract paintings.

In sum, the artists determine the value of the art works and hence carry on the precious value to us. If they are compared to a building, the critics are like the ornaments of a building. Under no circumstances would critics be posed to higher position.

crazyjooUID: 2805124

占位

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

人生需要鸡血啊。。。。现在正是时候。。

doraliuUID: 2842061

The author claims that the artist rather than critic gives society something of external and universal value. Since the arts is a form for artists to provide beauty, pleasure and expressions of some private feelings, so whether a work of art such as a painting, a piece of music or a film is valuable or not relies on the talents of artists. From this point of view, I agree that artists are the most important factor to decide the value of a work of art. But it is unfair to exclude all merits of critics, since the critics also play an important though not indispensable role to help artists to give the future generation some lasting value.
观点是artist bestow value to arts, critics have some merits but not indispensible

The lasting value of arts can be definite as something worthy to be permanent. We feel it pleasure to see a great comedy like “Amelie” which removes us from the daily chaos. We also bathed ourselves in the calm beautiful paintings such as a seascape painting. Moreover, some expressions including the revelation of the then society or moral instructions 没看明白, all provide us with rich sources to know what our human's have suffered or what accomplished we have achieved and inherited. All these will not disappear along with the death of artists or critics. 这个观点很好，但是前面是不是也没在论证它呢？


As I mentioned above, it is artists rather than critics that create those immortal art works full of beauty, pleasure and some expressions of their own. Without artists, any elaborate evaluation of art works is merely a castle in the air. We can ignore how New York Times appraise Spielberg’s films, but we cannot miss any chance to watch his film. Many people would agree that a great movie is far more important than the appraisement published on a certain column. Similarly, if there had no Van Gogh, there must had no “sunflower”, while if no critics in Van Gogh’s time, we still could appreciate the excellent painting. Thus, the artists can offer the society some lasting value without the participant of critic, but the critic cannot otherwise.
你只是证明了前一句， it is artists offer the society something with lasting value, 你说没有评论家有艺术家我们还是有这些伟大的艺术作品的，但是我觉得这没有证明critic cannot otherwise啊，所以我认为不能得出这个结论来，因为我的观点是artists created the arts and critics made the arts known to public. 可能我有点专牛角尖。。。。。而且 new york times 能不能算critics呢？

Moreover it is artists not critics determine the internal value of an art work. To a large measure, how critics depreciate a certain great work will not impede us to enjoy it. For example, the titanic film, although a lot of critics have a strong opposition against it, we still burst into tears when jack saved rose in sacrifice of his own life. On the contrary, a volume of weak engravings, no matter how critics praise it，it will not provide us with entertainment or beauty. So, the artists should be most credited since they instead of critics decide the value of an art work, while what critics has said has nothing to do with the value of arts.

这段论证的挺好，评论家的观点并不能代表艺术的价值，群众的眼睛是雪亮的



Although I agree that artists create the work the arts, we cannot ignore the merits of critics though they are secondarily important. First, they help artists to create more valuable works. Their critiques or reviews help artists to find their own defects and hence improve them afterwards. Some great critics such as Susannek Langer bring about many innovational theories on arts. Indeed, her books describing how to make criteria to determine the value of arts have regarded as beautiful literatures. Moreover, the critics still play an important role to the dissemination of arts. They guide the ordinary people to better know about the external meaning of arts. Without critics, there may be fewer people to realize the emotions embedded in Picasso’s abstract paintings.


这段跟前面有矛盾呢，你在推翻自己第二段的评论家不能创造价值的观点，第三段评论家的评论不能代表艺术价值的观点

呵呵我越来越尖刻了，不过我是这样认为的，brain-storm，可能比较弱智。。。。。。。

In sum, the artists determine the value of the art works and hence carry on the precious value to us. If they are compared to a building, the critics are like the ornaments of a building. Under no circumstances would critics be posed to higher position

费话先生UID: 2788924

多谢多谢，我自己客观地看了一遍。。直接想把自己抽丝了。。我自己再看也觉得观点不清。。悲剧啊。。。 4# doraliu

doraliuUID: 2842061

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;page=1&extra=


呵呵给你留个任务，有空帮我也改改~~先谢过！

费话先生UID: 2788924

好啊~话说，你啥时候考呢？ 6# doraliu

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

The author claims that the artist rather than critic gives society something of external and universal value. Since the arts is a form for artists to provide beauty, pleasure and expressions of some private feelings, so whether a work of art such as a painting, a piece of music or a film is valuable or not relies on the talents of artists. From this point of view, I agree that artists are the most important factor to decide the value of a work of art. But it is unfair to exclude all merits of critics, since the critics also play an important though not indispensable role to help artists to give the future generation some lasting value.
开头太啰嗦啦~绕来绕去的，最后得出一个结论~


The lasting value of arts can be definite
defined as something worthy to be permanent. We feel it pleasure to see a great comedy like “Amelie” which removes us from the daily chaos. We also bathed ourselves in the calm beautiful paintings such as a seascape painting. Moreover, some expressions including the revelation of the then society or moral instructions, all provide us with rich sources to know what our human's have suffered or what accomplished we have achieved and inherited. All these will not disappear along with the death of artists or critics.

As I mention above, it is artists rather than critics that create those immortal art works full of beauty, pleasure and some expressions of their own. Without artists, any elaborate evaluation of art works is merely a castle in the air. We can ignore how New York Times appraise Spielberg’s films, but we cannot miss any chance to watch his film. Many people would agree that a great movie is far more important than the appraisement published on a certain column. Similarly, if there had no Van Gogh, there must had no “sunflower”, while if no critics in Van Gogh’s time, we still could appreciate the excellent painting. 真的吗？如果评论家没有发现，可能他的画早就消失了。这里拿艺术家和评论家来对比不太好Thus, the artists can offer the society some lasting value without the participant of critic, but the critic cannot otherwise.


Moreover, it is artists not critics determine the internal value of an art work. To a large measure, how critics depreciate a certain great work will not impede us to enjoy it. For example, the titanic film, although a lot of critics have a strong opposition against it, we still burst into tears when jack saved rose in sacrifice of his own life. On the contrary, a volume of weak engravings, no matter how critics praise it，it will not provide us with entertainment or beauty. 这个例子和下一段矛盾啦。如果评论家知道其中的价值，而观众可能没有专业知识啊，要靠评论家引导观众欣赏高雅艺术了 So, the artists should be most credited since they instead of critics decide the value of an art work, while what critics has said has nothing to do with the value of arts.

这两段的论述很薄弱。艺术家创造了价值、决定了艺术的价值。那么到底是怎么样的价值、是什么让他们有如此的创造力呢？感觉你只举一些你认为是“有价值”的例子，然后和评论家的作用来对比，有些狭隘了。比如你下一段就确切的说了评论家的作用，而没有只是二者对比。

Although I agree that artists create the work the arts, we cannot ignore the merits of critics though they are secondarily important. First, they help artists to create more valuable works. Their critiques or reviews help artists to find their own defects and hence improve them afterwards. Some great critics such as Susannek Langer bring about many innovational theories on arts. Indeed, her books describing how to make criteria to determine the value of arts have been regarded as beautiful literatures. Moreover, the critics still play an important role to the dissemination of arts. They guide the ordinary people to better know about the external meaning of arts. Without critics, there may be fewer people to realize the emotions embedded in Picasso’s abstract paintings.
我觉得这一段论述评论家的作用写的很好，而且例子很恰当

In sum, the artists determine the value of the art works and hence carry on the precious value to us. If they are compared to a building, the critics are like the ornaments of a building. Under no circumstances would critics be posed to higher position.