Issue143 艺术类第一篇限时 大家掐

gdhdannyUID: 125843

Issue143
"Artists should pay little attention to their critics. Criticism tends to undermine and constrain the artist's creativity."

Syllabus:
1.艺术家应该意识到评论家的评论是受主观限制的；
2.艺术家不应该为了迎合评论家而创作；
3.有时评论家能够在大众和艺术家之间架起一座桥梁。

What is the proper relationship between artistic critics and the artists? Should the latter group pay little attention to the former one, as the speaker asserts? On balance, I fundamentally agree with the statement even though sometimes valuable criticism can help the artistic works be accepted by the general public.

The artists should realize the fact that the critics may not truly understand the work of the artists due to their personal limit of comprehension. Critics are no more than a minor group of social individuals, some of whom may be regarded in a certain field relevant to art. Because of the limitation of personal knowledge and understanding perspective, each critic always holds respective opinion towards different pieces of artistic work. If artists cannot realize this limitation, they will probably suffer from the depression of lacking identification. One should look no further than the tragedy of Van Gogh. Even though his works worth millions of dollars nowadays, not many critics cherished his paintings at that time. Struggling with self-depression for years, he finally committed suicide. Had he realized the limitation of criticism, the world might have more insightful and meaningful paintings by him.

The original requirement for a qualified artist is to create something novel that could reflect their own feelings. When comes to art, everyone expects to dig into the works of artists and try to figure out what they want to express. Therefore the art must have something inside, something as a representative of the artist's original mind. As John Le Carre once said (and I paraphrase), "When he flirts with fame, he is taking time off from living with himself, from the search for what his would contains at its inmost point." John insightfully pointed out that the artists should not work to please, to cater for the tastes of critics, which prevent their accomplishments from carrying original beliefs and feelings of their creators.

Admittedly, sometimes the critics act as a bridge between the abstract work of artists and the general public. On the one hand, their professional suggestion may spark artists who are eager to attain social identification. Due to the fact that most of the artists devote themselves to searching a useful way to express their beliefs during the process of producing something original, they are likely to be unaware of the capability of understanding among general publics. Consequently, some valuable response of the critics finds its way in a professional perspective to inform the artists the possible reaction of the public, by which the artists may explore a better expression. On the other hand, we should realize that not all the social individuals have the same professional judgment of art as the critics do. For the general public, art is mysterious and a far-fetched aspect of society which is beyond their capability of understanding. As a result, a group of critics provide their personal ideas to the public, which are more concrete and easy to understand than the abstract images or obscure literature of the artists.

In sum, we should realize the positive impact of criticism on artists as it narrows the gap between arts and public capability of understanding. Nevertheless, the artists themselves should not work to cater for the tastes of critics, which prevents them from reaching their prime goal in artistic creation.

551words + 44mins

coniUID: 137677

What is the proper relationship between artistic critics and the artists? Should the latter group pay little attention to the former one, as the speaker asserts? On balance, I fundamentally agree with the statement even though sometimes valuable criticism can help the artistic works be accepted by the general public.

The artists should realize the fact that the critics may not truly understand the work (works)of the artists due to their personal limit of comprehension. Critics are no more than a minor group of social individuals, some of whom may be regarded in a certain field relevant to art. Because of the limitation of personal knowledge and understanding perspective, each critic always holds respective opinion towards different pieces of artistic work.(你这句话的意思是：“由于个人知识和理解角度的局限性，每一个评论家对不同的艺术著作会持不同的观点”吗？如果是的话，我觉得这样挺好呀，评论家对不同的艺术著作会持不同的观点不正说明他们具体问题具体分析吗，为什么是因为他们的知识的局限性呢？也许是我没看明白，请教了) If artists cannot realize this limitation, they will probably suffer from the depression of lacking identification. One should look no further than the tragedy of Van Gogh. Even though his works worth millions of dollars nowadays, not many critics cherished his paintings at that(his) time. Struggling with self-depression for years, he finally committed suicide.（是吗？凡高死的好残呀！） Had he realized the limitation of criticism, the world might have more insightful and meaningful paintings (produced)by him.

The original requirement for a qualified artist is to create something novel that could reflect their own feelings. When comes to art, everyone expects to dig into the works of artists and try to figure out what they want to express. Therefore the art must have something inside, something as a representative of the artist's original mind. As John Le Carre once said (and I paraphrase), "When he flirts with fame, he is taking time off from living with himself, from the search for what his would contains at its inmost point." John insightfully pointed out that the artists should not work to please, to cater for the tastes of critics, which prevent(s) their accomplishments from carrying original beliefs and feelings of their creators.

Admittedly, sometimes the critics act as a bridge between the abstract work(s) of artists and the general public. On the one hand, their professional suggestion may spark artists who are eager to attain social identification. Due to the fact that most of the artists devote themselves to searching a useful way to express their beliefs during the process of producing something original, they are likely to be unaware of the capability of understanding among(of, 我觉得应该是the capability of general publics) general publics. Consequently, some valuable response of the critics finds its way in a professional perspective to inform the artists the possible reaction of the public, by which the artists may explore a better expression. On the other hand, we should realize that not all the social individuals have the same professional judgment of art as the critics do. For the general public, art is mysterious and a far-fetched aspect of society which is beyond their capability of understanding. As a result, a group of critics provide their personal ideas to the public, which are more concrete and easy(easier) to understand than the abstract images or obscure literature of the artists.

In sum, we should realize the positive impact of criticism on artists as it narrows the gap between arts and public capability of understanding. Nevertheless, the artists themselves should not work to cater for the tastes of critics, which prevents them from reaching their prime goal in artistic creation.


总体来说还是非常好的，倒装句和非人称主语的句子（至少在我看来）还是挺出彩的。 :D
我不太会给别人挑错，水平的确有限。就这样吧 :rolleyes:

forwwwUID: 154260

What is the proper relationship between artistic critics and the artists? Should the latter group pay little attention to the former one, as the speaker asserts? On balance, I fundamentally agree with the statement even though sometimes valuable criticism can help the artistic works be accepted by the general public.

The artists should realize the fact that the critics may not truly understand the work of the artists due to their personal limit of comprehension. Critics are no more than a minor group of social individuals, some of whom (应该用who吧？因为在它在从句里是主语, 也可能是我一直错到现在) may be regarded in a certain field relevant to art. Because of the limitation of personal knowledge and understanding perspective, each critic always holds respective opinion (opinions) towards different pieces of artistic work. If artists cannot realize this limitation, they will probably suffer from the depression of lacking identification. One should look no further than the tragedy of Van Gogh. Even though his works worth (is worth) millions of dollars nowadays, not many critics cherished his paintings at that time. Struggling with self-depression for years, he finally committed suicide. Had he realized the limitation of criticism, the world might have more insightful and meaningful paintings by him.

The original requirement (准确地说不是original requirement, 应该是What really matters to artists的意思吧？) for a qualified artist is to create something novel that could reflect their own feelings. When comes to art, everyone expects to dig into the works of artists and try to figure out what they want to express. Therefore the art must have something inside, something as a representative of the artist's original mind. As John Le Carre once said (and I paraphrase), "When he flirts with fame, he is taking time off from living with himself, from the search for what his would contains at its inmost point." John insightfully pointed out that the artists should not work to please, to cater for the tastes of critics, which prevent their accomplishments from carrying original beliefs and feelings of their creators (这里两个their指代不同).

Admittedly, sometimes the critics act as a bridge between the abstract work of artists and the general public. On the one hand, their professional suggestion may spark artists who are eager to attain social identification. Due to the fact that most of the artists devote themselves to searching a useful way to express their beliefs during the process of producing something original, they are likely to be unaware of the capability (incapability) of understanding among general publics. Consequently, some valuable response of the critics finds its way in a professional perspective to inform the artists the possible reaction of the public, by which the artists may explore a better expression. On the other hand, we should realize that not all the social individuals have the same professional judgment of art as the critics do. For the general public, art is mysterious and a far-fetched aspect of society which is beyond their capability of understanding. As a result, a group of critics provide their personal ideas to the public, which are more concrete and easy to understand than the abstract images or obscure literature of the artists.

In sum, we should realize the positive impact of criticism on artists as it narrows the gap between arts and public capability of understanding. Nevertheless, the artists themselves should not work to cater for the tastes of critics, which prevents (这里word说不对，我也不晓得为什么，好像它认为应该是tastes, 而不是整句话，那句子前面加个that吧?) them from reaching their prime goal in artistic creation.

551words + 44mins
考试的时候写成这样就没有问题罗。呵呵。

gdhdannyUID: 125843

谢谢楼上的两位了。

[B] to Coni:[/B]
    Because of the limitation of personal knowledge and understanding perspective, each critic always holds respective opinion towards different pieces of artistic work.
    这句话我的本意是想说一个评论家对于不同的作品会因为知识和理解的角度差异而产生不同的感觉，所以作为艺术品的原创者不应该太在意。
  估计是有歧义。

[B] to forwww:[/B]
    1.some of whom (应该用who吧？因为在它在从句里是主语, 也可能是我一直错到现在) may be regarded in a certain field relevant to art. :o
    实在丢人啊。让我想起老友记里的Ross，他最爱给人纠正的语法错误就是who->whom，太乐了，下次肯定记住了。  :D

    2.is worth = is worthy of对吧

  3.The original requirement (准确地说不是original requirement, 应该是What really matters to artists的意思吧？)
     有道理的说。中文语文没学好。  :o

    4.they are likely to be unaware of the capability (incapability) of understanding among general public.
    不太明白地说为什么要改成incapability，我的意思是艺术家可能没有意识到大众对艺术作品的理解力。

[B] to both of you:[/B]
    你们觉得论证的如何？是不是有理？

forwwwUID: 154260

is worth $XXXX 是正确的表达啊，
值多少钱不太用is worthy of，别扭。
论点上主要要抓住因为很多极好的作品的思想是超越时代的。这个在第一段里有所提到，但是没有点清楚。因为虽然说他们的评论家的言论带有主观性，但是说得准确点，是他们不够有超越时代的creative的眼光。所以说incomprehensive不准确。而是traditional

第三个观点不能太认同，最多说评论家很多时候promote了艺术家的作品，他们说了好的，就更加容易热卖，别人说好。真正认同艺术的public自己的有鉴赏性。上面也说了评论家们有时并不能够看出内在的东西，又怎么能说建立起真正的桥梁呢？是不是？我感觉评论家可是帮助真正的艺术家生存从而实现梦想，当然啦，评论家挑哪个幸运儿就不是艺术家自己说了算的。因为要是没有人欣赏，是很难实现梦想的。cynical 了点。

仅供参考。论据可以点的再准一点。已经很好啦。：）羡慕应！

gdhdannyUID: 125843

重新想了想，有以下几点。

1.some of whom (应该用who吧？因为在它在从句里是主语, 也可能是我一直错到现在) may be regarded in a certain field relevant to art.
  应该用whom, of + 宾语，不过who好像可以代替whom的所有作用，所以你的也没错。

2.其实我第一段是想强调艺术家应该主动意识到评论家的主观性，艺术家是主体，这一段是从反面讨论如果艺术家不能调整搞自己的心态，可能会影响他们的艺术前程。

3.第三段谈到桥梁作用。当然是两方面：首先，评论家作为专业人士，观点往往更容易被艺术家接受，帮助后者推广自己的作品；另一方面，评论家可以帮助一些人（注意这些人认为art is mysterious and a far-fetched aspect of society which is beyond their capability of understanding）更好地了解艺术作品的设计初衷。从这两方面得出桥梁作用。

最近脑子里逻辑比较混乱，还是讨论一下能帮助理清头绪，大家都来辨。

forwwwUID: 154260

1. 同意，搞清楚了，也就是说，是应该跟从句，跟相当于them的whom
2. 这样说也成。我只是觉得从历史客观性角度来说许多艺术家的确是超时代所以不能够得到理解，可能加上会更充实一点。
3. 最好限定一下，评论家们的客观的得到艺术家本人承认的评论。这部分评论是对艺术家有利的。我们讲的是事物的两个方面哦。呵呵。assumption不一样。所以就有出入的说啦

四月的迷迭香UID: 154552

第三个body我觉得写得不错,同意作者的观点.当然如果其中有一些让步就更好了,否则有一点和第一段(the limitation of personal knowledge and understanding perspective)有自相矛盾的感觉.当然限时的,已经很不错啦.