issue 144 同主题作业 别留情，拍死我的说！

timbryantUID: 175832

------题目------
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.
------正文------
According to the title statement, the artist is more important to the society than the critic. While I do not agree with it，I insist that the existing of the critic is a natural thing, because the society need them.

First of all, the most important illustration for my view is that the critic is significantly valuable to the artist. A professional art critic needs to have a lot of  knowledge of art.
Without critics, the generals can not distinguish wether a work is good or not. The most popular painting of Van Gogh's work called the Starry Night which was completed near the mental asylum of Saint-Remy, 13 months before Van Gogh's death at the age of 37. He painted furiously and the planets gyrate, yet the cosmic gold fireworks swirl against the blue sky. Honestly, I felt terrible when I first saw the painting. But until I have red some critiques of it, I have found the wonderfulness of the famous painting.

In the second place, there is another reason to support my claim. It is true that only works of artist can have lasting value rather than the artist or the critic. But art is pointless without criticism. Art critics have existed since the infancy of art. Because there always are some people who are willingly to express their own ideas, during those ideas, professional ones became the criticism. However, the process of criticism would be accumulated to form a method and became a common vocation. Thus the relationship of critics and artists is delicate. Salvador Dali, Spain painter, was born in Spanish in 1904. He has many famous works, including the Persistence of Memory, the Sheep, etc. He was considered to be super-realitism. He was always training him self to be different from others, which was considered his resource of creativity. However, some critics do not accept his new kind of art. The good opinions of his works are significantly rare. And his relationship with the critics is not good. What is more, he was considered the freak by the critic. In fact, on the contrary, the criticisms of his work made him more concentrated. When the super-realitism can be adapted by the critics, he was considered the master. Nevertheless, we should not ignore the contribution of the critics to the identification of Dali.

Admittedly, common sense tells us that we can not remember several names of critics rather than the artists'. But the fact is, many critics are artists themselves since the professional knowledge should be acquired or they will be unable to make informed assessments. On the other hand, the purpose of the criticism is to evaluate rather than to be remembered. This is a respectful career, without critics, the works of Gogh Vincent Van produced in only ten years would not last still today, and he may be considered to be a edge person lived in a poor asylum.

To conclude, one does not need to go very far to see that the critic is as important as the artist. The existing of critic does not only because that they are necessary, but also because some people want to express their own views, so it turns out to be critics.

timbryantUID: 175832

自己顶~~

timbryantUID: 175832

sigh~再顶一次吧