issue144 内附提纲，写完自己修改后才传上来的，欢迎大家使劲砸。

zhangsx_1982UID: 176926

144"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.
提纲：
1．        对value和lasting value进行定义。
2．        艺术大师创造了lasting value的作品，但是因此说艺术家gives the society something of lasting value，不合适。
3．        尤其在当今社会中，好多垃圾艺术充斥我们的生活，并不是所有的艺术家都gives the society something of lasting value。
4．        引用一具名人说得话说明“艺术家”和”gives the society something of lasting value” 之间的关系
5．        评论家对”lasting value” 做贡献。
6．        但评论家不直接创造lasting value 的作品，同时阐明critic和”lasting value”之间的关系。
7．        结论
Well, when it comes to "value", we come to a consensus that value means something useful or of high quality. And when it comes to "lasting value", we can also easily come to an unanimity that it means that the usefulness of something can last. As to the item above-"It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.", we may not solve the problem of which gives the society something of lasting value only by clarifying the definition of lasting value. I will show my viewpoint as follows:

To begin with "artist", artist are those who create novels, films, music, paintings, etc. Some canonical works of virtuosos such Picasso, Beethoven, Van gogh and Sharkspere represent the state of art not only in their time, but also lead us in our time even after so many years. They gave society something of lasting value, which is still quite admitted and learned by their descendants. But if we then come to a conclusion that it is artist who gives society something of lasting value only because these virtuosos, it may be inappropriate.

Especially in our time where communication implements are so developed, we are more crowded by kinds of art, and many impose bad effects, such as erotic literatures, unhealthy movies and music. They are the veritable rubbish that pollute our mind. And the artists who create those rubbish could not bear such reputation-"the artist gives society something of lasting value."

Thus, a famous professor' adage may best repress my view here, I recite here under my comprehension: It is society who cultivates many artists, and it is the few artists who give our society lasting value.

Well, as to critics who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc, they do have made much contributions. They help to drive out those nonsense rubbish, which contribute nothing to our society, but just to pollute our eyes and mind, while making the public be more aware of those good and making those good be more comprehensible by evaluating them. Thus, what their contribution to lasting value is that they contribute to make those works of lasting value known by the public. And they contribute to making some kind of environment under which those virtuosos grow and learn and form their minds and finally create something.

But if we get to a conclusion by the reasons stated above that it is critic who gives society something of lasting value, it may be not quite proper for they do not make those works of lasting value, though they contribute to those of lasting value.

In a conclusion, the proposition would be correct if more confinement is added. It is the artists creating valuable works who give society something of lasting value. And critics contribute to those of lasting value.

zhangsx_1982UID: 176926

没人评，那我自己顶一个哈，大家支持啊

pdyhcUID: 177332

Issue 144. "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.

正在改你的

50分钟写成。第一篇勉强算是限时成功的作文。写的很烂了拉。说好和blur顶牛的，就帖上来了。大家看看就行了，作个对比。如果忙，就不要费心细改我这篇了。我自己都还没有进行过细致修改啊。不想耽搁大家的宝贵时间。如果回头我自己修改得差不多， 有请大家修改的价值，大家到时候再费心吧。还有那个zhangsx，写好了没有？贴上来一起探讨。


Art, the highest understanding of the world, which records human being’s life and history, provides humanity lasting value. Someone asserts that it is the artist, not the critic, gives society something of lasting value. However, for my part, I deem that both artists, who create art works, and critics, who evaluate works of art, are indispensable and equally important in producing such lasting value. What different lies between them is their performing means and different function in creating such lasting values.

Artists reveal their views or record what happening in the world through their works. The values formed in those works are crucial parts in constituting social lasting shared values. Paintings reveal and convey people’s aesthetic preferences. Literatures disclose people’s inner psychological world and feeling needs. Films rebuild and even refine the real world on the screen and usually represent the cotemporary moral and esthetic trends. Music serves as a subtle channel for people to express those things closest to their hearts. All kinds of art works serve as vital medias to develop shared values that underpin the social cohesion.

Undoubtedly, it is artists, who create such art works, create such lasting value directly．Without artists, where art works come out? Without works, how do the critics criticize? Losing their criticizing objects, the critics can do nothing to create any kind of lasting values.

However, critics’ contribution in constructing such lasting value should not be neglected. An important function of art is to be appreciated by the public. However, in most cases, a piece of artwork rather reveals the aesthetic preference or the inner mental world of the artist who create it than appeal to the public appetite. It is quite common that many invaluable art works cannot be well understood or widely accepted by the public. The history of art tells that people ever neglected many great art works in long time. In such situation, even the art works contain great values, if it cannot be disclosed to the public, they may lose the lasting value they deserved. The importance of critics is more likely to be evaluated reasonably in such circumstances. People may find the critics may do even more contributions in uncovering such potential value of those neglected art works to the public. Such disclosure can be regarded as reproduction of lasting value in certain levels.

In a word, both artists and critics play crucial roles in creating or disclosing the lasting values of artworks. They just work in different ways. While artists create lasting values through constructing artworks, critics disclose or reproduce lasting values through evaluating artists’ works.

pdyhcUID: 177332

（刚才网段了，帖不上来，急死个人了）


提纲：
1． 对value和lasting value进行定义。
2． 艺术大师创造了lasting value的作品，但是因此说艺术家gives the society something of lasting value，不合适。
3． 尤其在当今社会中，好多垃圾艺术充斥我们的生活，并不是所有的艺术家都gives the society something of lasting value。[这里说道垃圾，如果后文能够抓住这个垃圾发挥一下critic的作用就好了。Critic帮我们鉴别真假艺术，帮我们分辨出精华艺术品和垃圾艺术品。不知道你后面写了没。怕望，先写上]
4． 引用一具名人说得话说明“艺术家”和”gives the society something of lasting value” 之间的关系
5． 评论家对”lasting value” 做贡献。
6． 但评论家不直接创造lasting value 的作品，同时阐明critic和”lasting value”之间的关系。
7． 结论
Well, when it comes to "value", we come to a consensus that value means something useful or of high quality. And when it comes to "lasting value", we can also easily come to an unanimity that it means that the usefulness of something can last. As to the item above-"It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.", we may not solve the problem of which gives the society something of lasting value only by clarifying the definition of lasting value. I will show my viewpoint as follows:[定义的并不清楚。如果定义不清楚，就不要明确给别人你是在下定义的感觉。自己知道就行了。圆滑点来整这个定义可能有好处。你文中说as to the item above，但是我觉得你上面的定义不仅没有定义清楚，而且对于主题没有什么支撑点。也就说这个定义没有价值。为什么出现这个情况？因为你并没有有意识地去发掘处as to the item above的前后的两个部分之间内在的某种逻辑关系。]

To begin with "artist",[感觉有问题。或许句号还耗电] artist are those who create novels, films, music, paintings, etc[有点废话的味道。这种话太肤浅，没说道点上]. Some canonical works of virtuosos such Picasso, Beethoven, Van gogh and Sharkspere represent the state of art not only in their time, but also lead us[咋就恁牵强呢but also lead us,还不如说到今天对我们仍具崇高的审美价值] in our time even after so many years. They gave society something of lasting value, which is still quite admitted and learned by their descendants. But if we then come to a conclusion that it is artist who gives society something of lasting value only because these virtuosos, it may be inappropriate.[由于有垃圾，否定艺术总的lasting value 价值，不合理哦]

[不分段更好]Especially in our time where communication implements are so developed, we are more crowded by kinds of art, and many impose bad effects, such as erotic literatures, unhealthy movies and music. They are the veritable rubbish that pollute our mind. And the artists who create those rubbish could not bear such reputation-"the artist gives society something of lasting value."

Thus, a famous professor' adage may best repress my view here, I recite here under my comprehension[这种话硬插进来干什么哦。直接引用更利索嘛]: It is society who cultivates many artists, and it is the few artists who give our society lasting value.

Well, as to critics who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc, they do have made much contributions. They help to drive out those nonsense rubbish, which contribute nothing to our society, but just to pollute our eyes and mind, while making the public be more aware of those good and making those good be more comprehensible by evaluating them. Thus, what their contribution to lasting value is that they contribute to make those works of lasting value known by the public. And they contribute to making some kind of environment under which those virtuosos grow and learn and form their minds and finally create something. [感觉对critics的作用的发掘不够到位]

But if we get to a conclusion by the reasons stated above that it is critic who gives society something of lasting value, it may be not quite proper for they do not make those works of lasting value, though they contribute to those of lasting value.[这段，改一下，融到最后结尾段就可以了。这么一小段，没说出太多东西，在这里立着，很突兀]

In a conclusion, the proposition would be correct if more confinement is added.[一是废话，二是有一点范了ETS忌讳的味道。人家明确说过不要分析题目里的逻辑错误。我只是说一点，一点点哈。不严重] It is the artists creating valuable works who give society something of lasting value. And critics contribute[这个contribute超级模糊。既然你上句话有artists 和lasting value有关系的意思，从你的reasoning line来看，你偏向的是critics，那你是不是应该给读者对比一下，两者对lasting value 的关系有哪些不同] to those of lasting value.[你这个结尾段，感觉不够有力和深入]

migao21UID: 58234

说实在看完楼主的这篇， 我觉得很混乱


144"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.
提纲：
1． 对value和lasting value进行定义。我来此版不久，也是因为自己实在写不出来，想要借鉴“剽窃”一下好的ideas, 不知道为何大家为何那么热衷于定义论题中的关键词？

2． 艺术大师创造了lasting value的作品，但是因此说艺术家gives the society something of lasting value，不合适。
既然“艺术大师创造了lasting value的作品”， 你都承认了。    :rolleyes:
3． 尤其在当今社会中，好多垃圾艺术充斥我们的生活，并不是所有的艺术家都gives the society something of lasting value。你这段有点像犯了argument里的错误－
4． 引用一具名人说得话说明“艺术家”和”gives the society something of lasting value” 之间的关系
5． 评论家对”lasting value” 做贡献。
感觉好像只有这段是关键
6． 但评论家不直接创造lasting value 的作品，同时阐明critic和”lasting value”之间的关系。
为何不和上面一段合并？好像没有分论证啊
7． 结论

Well, when it comes to "value", we come to a consensus that value means something useful or of high quality. And when it comes to "lasting value", we can also easily come to an unanimity that it means that the usefulness of something can last. [U]As to the item above-"It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.", [/U]  we may not solve the problem of which gives the society something of lasting value only by clarifying the definition of lasting value. I will show my viewpoint as follows:
倒数第二句看不懂？“我们也许无法解决这个问题，就通过阐明永久价值的定义， 谁（什么）来给社会(具有)永久价值的东西？” 整段没有一个鲜明的论点

To begin with "artist", artist are those who create novels, films, music, paintings, etc. Some canonical works of virtuosos such Picasso, Beethoven, Van gogh and Sharkspere represent the state of art not only in their time, but also lead us in our time even after so many years. They gave society something of lasting value, which is still quite admitted and learned by their descendants. But if we then come to a conclusion that it is artist who gives society something of lasting value only because these virtuosos, it may be inappropriate.
这一段算是提出了论点， 也只有最后一句

Especially in our time where communication implements are so developed, we are more crowded by kinds of art, and many impose bad effects, such as erotic literatures, unhealthy movies and music. They are the veritable rubbish that pollute our mind. And the artists who create those rubbish could not bear such reputation-"the artist gives society something of lasting value."
这段和后面的论述有重复

Thus, a famous professor' adage may best repress my view here, I recite here under my comprehension: It is society who cultivates many artists, and it is the few artists who give our society lasting value.
“是社会培养了许多艺术家，而几乎没有艺术家给我们的社会永久价值”，但是后半句话简直就是就像“为什么不对？因为是错的”，就像没有论证。

Well, as to critics who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc, they do have made much contributions. They help to drive out those nonsense rubbish, which contribute nothing to our society, but just to pollute our eyes and mind, while making the public be more aware of those good and making those good be more comprehensible by evaluating them. Thus, what their contribution to lasting value is that they contribute to make those works of lasting value known by the public. And they contribute to making some kind of environment under which those virtuosos grow and learn and form their minds and finally create something.

But if we get to a conclusion by the reasons stated above that it is critic who gives society something of lasting value, it may be not quite proper for they do not make those works of lasting value, though they contribute to those of lasting value.

这段没有很好的论证


In a conclusion, the proposition would be correct if more confinement is added. It is the artists creating valuable works who give society something of lasting value. And critics contribute to those of lasting value.
最后一段很关键，我总认为最好是一个完美的总结， 我觉得没有必要给论题加上各种限制好让它很完美。 我认为你的这段同上面一段意思又重复了， 大大的消弱了你的论点。


以上是我的观点，说的不妥之处请鉴谅

zhangsx_1982UID: 176926

终于有人评了，很高兴，喜欢砖头，明天改你的，再把我改的发上来，现在好累，先歇会哈

migao21UID: 58234

刚才看了《老外范文》，144是这么写的
他是同意
首先提出反面的论点
1. critic帮助我们理解艺术
2. critic筛选出优秀的艺术
3. critic可以给艺术家及时的反馈

然后他开始分3段驳斥以上论点
1.每个人对艺术的理解不同， 而且艺术是带有感情色彩的，critic会歪曲我们对艺术理解
2.新的艺术形式或作品（总是）会被critic reject, 我们会失去很多优秀的艺术
3.反馈会毁坏艺术家的创作灵感和冲动

pdyhcUID: 177332

从提纲来看看，老外好像忘了一个重要东东，lasting value。它没有进一步发展，接触到lasting value,所以还差一层呢。不知道人家的文章抓到Lasting value 这个害死人的狐狸精了没有


严重同意Migao。
migao能不能看看我对楼主的文章的评价？我们发现了同样的严重问题。我觉得综合我 和你的评价，就是对楼主文章的完美评价。

突然有种冲动，觉得我们提供了如此珠联璧合的评论，如果我认识你Migao,也认识zhangsx，我估计我会拖着migao你去敲zhangsx竹杠了。至少盖浇饭！！！！哈哈，西安高校流行盖浇饭。

我还有个怀疑, zhangsx是不是交大的？

migao21UID: 58234

最初由 pdyhc 发布
[B]严重同意Migao。
migao能不能看看我对楼主的文章的评价？我们发现了同样的严重问题。我觉得综合我 和你的评价，就是对楼主文章的完美评价。

突然有种冲动，觉得我们提供了如此珠联璧合的评论，如果我认识你Migao,也认识zhangsx，我估计我会拖着migao你去敲zhangsx竹杠了。至少盖浇饭！！！！哈哈，西安高校流行盖浇饭。

我还有个怀疑, zhangsx是不是交大的？

[/B]

实际上，我贴上以后才发现你评论先了，的确看到了很多我们共同发现的错误，呵呵。

BTW, 我是上海的，我工作了，现在在职考G。

pdyhc 你的文章我也看了，我觉得你的词汇语法用的很好，羡慕ing.  

我觉得写的时候，观点一定要明确，这也是我决定尽量不写Partial agree的原因，  因为时间有限， 把矛盾的正反2方说清楚不是很容易的。 而且西方受形而上学基督教影响，思维方式不大拥护中庸， 他们喜欢Yes or No。

论证的原因尽量并列清楚， 至少我还没有达到可以层层递进的论证（用中文也做不到）， 事实是短时间里面层层递进的写法容易把论证写重复。

migao21UID: 58234

最初由 pdyhc 发布
[B]从提纲来看看，老外好像忘了一个重要东东，lasting value。它没有进一步发展，接触到lasting value,所以还差一层呢。不知道人家的文章抓到Lasting value 这个害死人的狐狸?.

[/B]

你说的有道理

不是说老外的文章就一定好， 但是我的感觉如下：
这个论题的主要矛盾是artist和critic， 关于lasting， 的确不好说－－既然是value了，怎么还要lasting?  老外的文章引用的例子里面的确说到了伏尔泰否定Shakespeare, 和Beethoven的 music受到的不公正待遇。 老外抓住了艺术给人们带来的价值，忽略了lasting.

pdyhcUID: 177332

嗯。虽然老外忘了lasting value，但是他目光很犀利，对critic驳斥的很透彻。的确，最核心的矛盾在artist和critic 中间。不过细读一下这个issue，会发现lasting value 很值得关注，很有价值。另外撇开这个issue，人家这种批判思维很值得学啊

我下了决心，结合老外的这个提纲，把我写的细改一下，明天发上来。大家不吝赐教啊

谢谢migao的夸奖。我1月13考了。郁闷。你时间还早。以后我想会有叫多时间改你的文章的

我还是学生，不过考G也不轻松。因为是研究生，老板盯的紧。郁闷中。这些东西以后不忙再交流了。

很高兴在这里认识很多可爱的GTER  ：）

blur13_0UID: 150275

看到大伙的热烈讨论，备受启发和鼓舞！！
zhangsx_1982 ， migao21 和pdyhc的评论很好啊
俺先不多说，等着你的改文啊 ;)

zhangsx_1982UID: 176926

看到大家的评论我简直太兴奋了
欢迎pdyhc拖着migao21来敲我竹杠哦，还有blur那句话，我都怕改文辜负大家
说实在的我是学理的，对于艺术类简直不通，看了imong的作文特训，按照他的顺序来的，碰上这么难的文章，真是觉的好困难
不过，看到有大家这么热情的帮助和恳切的批评，我相信我没有理由再让大家看这么烂的文章
改过的文章等今晚可能要晚些哦，白天上午导师鉴定会，下午试验，只好晚上了。
ps：如果上帝再给我一次机会的话，我一定不负众望等大家去交大宰我，只是，我当年差一分失去了去交大的机会，哈哈，要宰我就来济南吧，我在济南读研二！qq：124711900，加我吧，注明身份G友哦，不然就拒了哈哈！
ps又ps：我05年3.7考，大家呢

zhangsx_1982UID: 176926

I regard value as monetary worth of something (it equals the price of something) or relative worth, utility, importance( eg, a good value at the price). But when it comes to lasting value, it is quite obvious that the second kind of value can last, and the price of something always fluctuate.(还是阐述定义，不过这次应该是明确多了，我认为定义是有必要的，知道什么叫lasting value,才能展开工作吗)

Then when it comes to artist, critic and their contribution to society, it is artist who creates art and it is critic who evaluate the works of artist-art. Art -as we all can feel- presents as color, music, dance; serves as fantasy, communication, great enjoyment and gives us characteristics and future. Art is the weekend party, the music from car radio, the toys babies played with, etc. Art is the very indispensable thing in our lives which should not be measured by price and is something of lasting value and seems to be more indispensable to critics who evaluate them and often influence the pubic by publishing their ideas of the work of artists and more often influence the price of the works.

Though the ideas of critics help us understand the art works, they often mislead us. Art is something spiritual, emotional, and different people have different understandings, but critics are more able to make their ideas public which prevent us from discovering our own thoughts and indirectly prevent us from appreciating something of lasting value when their comment is the mainstream. Take "starry night" (drawn by Van Gogh) for example. When the work was first published, it was questioned and was not accepted by critics. The ideas of the critics at his time then inhibited this kind of art from being popular.

In fact, art has its own value, not only due to the reasons that was showed in the second paragraph-art is important for our lives and its function cannot be measured by money, but also because as a kind substantial subject everything has its value which cannot be changed by others' comments and opinions. It is like the value of gold, its inane value would not change  whether people discover them or not.  Gold sure will sparkle sooner or later. As the example just presented, "starry night"  has its own value, and is something like gold. Its value does not change whether it was at his time when people do not quite accept it or it is at our time when people appreciate it very much and was sold at an extremely high price recently. And nobody would buy my paintings(I know nothing of painting) whether in our time or in future for they are of little value.

From the argument above, we can conclude that it is artist who give our society of lasting value.  

刚刚弄完，捣鼓了一晚上，因为我们宿舍11点熄灯，没时间多说了，明天再把我想说的话贴上，我怕大家等急了，所以今晚无论如何要贴上让大家砸，

blur13_0UID: 150275

zhangsx_1982
I regard value as monetary worth of something (it equals the 添个fixed与下面relative对应如何price of something) or relative worth, utility, importance( eg, a good value at the price).俺觉得最好别直接说自己来下定义，可以说“value” is usually regard as…. But when it comes to lasting value, it is quite obvious that the second换latter kind of value can last, and the price of something always fluctuate.(还是阐述定义，不过这次应该是明确多了，我认为定义是有必要的，知道什么叫lasting value,才能展开工作吗)大胆的开头，放开了啊，但我水平有限，不能对这样开头明确评价，惭愧

Then when it comes to artist, critic and their contribution to society, it is 加theartist who creates art and it is 加thecritic who evaluate the works of artist-art. Art -as we all can feel- presents 删as color, music, dance; serves as fantasy, communication, great enjoyment and gives us characteristics and future. Art is the weekend party, the music from car radio, the toys babies played with, etc. Art is the very indispensable thing in our lives which shouldcould如何 not be measured by price and is something of lasting value and seems to be more indispensable换irreplaceable to critics who evaluate them and often influence the pubic by publishing their ideas of the work of artists and more often influence换affect the price of the works.最后一句太长了，反而削弱了表达，这个毛病我也常犯

Though the ideas of critics help us understand the art works, they often mislead us. Art is something spiritual, emotional, and different people have different understandings, but critics are more able to make their ideas public which prevent us from discovering our own thoughts and indirectly prevent us from换undermine our appreciating something of lasting value when their comment is the mainstream. Take "starry night" (drawn by Van Gogh) for example. When the work was first published, it was questioned and was not accepted by critics. The ideas of the critics at his time then inhibited this kind of art from being popular.例子可以再展开

In fact, art has its own value, not only due to the reasons 删that was showed in the second paragraph-art is important for our lives and its function cannot be measured破折号后面的话有必要再重复吗？担心压了这段的主题句 by money, but also because as a kindof substantial subject everything has its value which cannot be changed by others' comments and opinions. It is like the value of gold, its inane value would not change whether people discover them or not. Gold sure will sparkle sooner or later. As the example just presented, "starry night" has its own value, and is something like gold. 或许我没看懂….这么说不算…吗？是谁决定了凡高的画的永恒价值呢？主论点不是已经定义为relative了吗，怎么这里又变成not change ？而且谁说黄金的价格不变啊，从古至今一直在变，一直受其他因素影响啊Its value does not change whether it was at his time when people do not quite accept it or it is at our time when people appreciate it very much and was sold at an extremely high price recently. And nobody would buy my paintings(I know nothing of painting) whether in our time or in future for they are of little value.个人觉得这段问题较大，没说清到底lasting value是什么决定的，黄金的价值也不是一发现就一直不变，如果把永恒的价值说得这么inherent，那么感觉难度很大，除非是God能有这么强的实力。。。。扯远了，可能我的观点不太准确，但见一重新自己多读几遍

From the argument above, we can conclude that it is artist who give our society of lasting value. 个性的结尾，呵呵，但可以再多提一下批评家


总评
1看得出是熄灯前的作品，呵呵，时间紧
2看得出结构大胆，想突破，支持，但有风险
3可以适当加点同义词
4俺水平虽不如你，但扔了大砖……呵呵