issue144 [color=fuchsia]同主题 纯说理 一个艺术例子都没写不知行不

flyingwindUID: 189320

保持原貌没润色，改了语法错误
几乎纯说理，不知道行不行
字数不少了，再加例子要上700了

Issue144
------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------
I strongly agree with the title statement that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. From the perspective of history of art, the value of artworks had been determined at the moment it was born in the hand of the artist while the critic serves to be footnote to the true masterpiece, which neither diminishes the value of certain art work, nor improves it.

Admittedly, it is not to say that critics are of no use at all. In at least three aspects, they function well. First, critics interpret the meaning of artworks or otherwise hidden impulse of society the artworks refer to. Some artworks are abstractly reflections of the inner world of artist; others express the thinking and concern of the artists to their contemporaries events. In the art world, devoid of the help of critics, who, more often than not, have profund knowledge and ample experience as to assess the scope, thoroghness, quality of artworks, the common people cannot "read" artists at heart. Second, a critic serves as a "filter" and helps us to determine which is more likely worthwhile and deserved our time and money to focus on, especially considering the myriads of artists existed before and plethora of new pieces emerging everyday. Third, critics can provide feedback, if wholehearted, might help artists improve both their technical and intellectual proficiency. In turn, artist can bring back more excellent works.

While it is sound that critics work in above three aspects, close inspection revels that even in the very three aspects; the critics give little realistic value to masterpieces and society. In some cases, they are even counterproductive to the evaluation of artists and their endeavors. The reason lies in two aspects. One is that no one can guarantee that the critique is objective and has no intervention by other factors. For example, if some famous critics are controlled by certain media moguls, who are incline to bolster one artist as well as debase another. Also, consider the critics have some family relationship or close friendship with one artist, maybe the glorification is overrated.

The other factor lies in that the evaluation might be unavoidably limited by the individual perspective and personal favor. In this case, the artists might be just and believable persons and enthusiastic to make right and objective judgment. Unfortunately, due to their personal limitation in knowledge and inquiry, they might make an opposite judgment. Thus, the besmirched masterpiece cannot gain its deserving evaluation. We, common people, might also be misguided by those critics since in our view, they are experts and less make mistakes.

As to the third function of critic, if saying some known artworks are born in the way enduring trial and error process; few masterpieces are produced this way. True measure of art stems from the impact of spirit sparks, the critical thinking to the common life and lonely inquiry to the nature or the society, not in the synthesis of viewpoints of critics. Also, true art masters never pander to the critics for the purpose of improving their reputations and fames; in contrast, they endure the loneliness to develop the laws and principles of nature, human beings and society, exhibit passion and sense in music, painting, novels, sculpture, etc.  

In all, true value of preeminent masterworks lies not in the words of critics, but rather in the lines and colors of paintings, the notes in the symphony, and the staves in the melody. Critic, though do some services to the appreciation for audiences and feedback to the artists, by nature, they come to no good to determine whether an art work is great, or not.  

davidjackyUID: 135962

No.1 issue144 同主题 纯说理 一个艺术例子都没写不知行不行?
保持原貌没润色，改了语法错误
几乎纯说理，不知道行不行
字数不少了，再加例子要上700了

Issue144
------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------
I strongly agree with the title statement that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. From the perspective of history of art, the value of art work areis determined at我记得这个句式不要at，要么后面用when的从句 the moment it born in the hand of the artist while the critic serves to be footnotes to the true masterpiece, it neither diminish the value of certain art work, nor improve it.
单复数几乎没有对的，有点对你失望，继续观察
Admittedly, it is not to say that critics are of no use at all. In at least three aspects, they functions? well. First, they interpret the meaning of art or otherwise hidden impulse of reflection it refers to. Some art works are abstractly reflectionreflected of the inner world of artist; others express the thinking and concern of the artists to their contemporaries. Either of them, devoid of the help of critics who, more often than not, have much research and experience in that field, can explain the art explicitly insofar as the common people can "read" artist in heart. Second, a critic serve as a "filter" and help us to determine which is more likely worthwhile and deserved the time and money to focus on, especially considering the myriads of artists existed before and plethora of new pieces emerging. Third, critics can provide feedback, if wholehearted, can help artists improve both their technical and intellectual proficiency. In turn, artist can bring back more excellent works.

While it is sound that critics does in three aspects above, close inspection revels that even in the particular three aspects, the critics give little realistic value to the masterpiece and the society, in some cases, they are even counterproductive to the evaluation of artists and their works. The reason lies in two aspects. One is that no one can provide that the critique is objective and no intervention by other factors. For example, if some famous critics are controlled by certain media moguls, who are incline to bolster one artist in term of debasing another. Then the critique is unfair and unjust. Also consider the critics have some family relationship or close friendship with one artist, maybe the exhilaration is overrated.

The other factor lies that the evaluation is unavoidably limited by the individual perspective and personal favor. In this case, the artist are just and believable person and enthusiastic to make right and objective judgment. Unfortunately, due to his/her own limitation about knowledge and inquiry, he/she might make an opposite judgment. Thus, the besmirched masterpiece cannot gain its deserving evaluation. We, common people, might also be misguided by those critics since in our view, they are experts and less make mistakes.

As to the third function of critic, I have to say that in the art history, if saying some known art works is born in the way enduring trial and error process; few masterpieces are produced this way. True measure of art born in the impact of spirit sparks, the critical thinking to the common life and lonely inquiry to the nature or the society, not in the synthesis of viewpoints of critics. Also, true art masters never pandering to the critics so as to improve his/her reputation and fame, rather he/she can endure the loneliness to develop the laws and principles of nature, human beings and society and exhibit those passion and sense in music, painting, novels, sculpture , etc.

In all, true measure of preeminent masterwork lies not in the words of critics, but rather in the lines and colors of paintings, the notes in the symphony, and the staves in a melody. The critics, though does some service to the appreciation for audiences and feedback to artists, by nature, they come to no good to determine whether an art work is great, or not.
实在抱歉，文章单复数、主被动、动词名词浑为一谈，我空腹改了N篇，前面还挺舒服，觉得不错的文章，你这篇实在让我失望，你来寄托很久了，文章我也看了不少，你怎么了？请修正错误再传，谢谢

补充说明：
flyingwind的文采很好，但这篇文章是那天改的单复数错的最多的，所以很生气，言过之处，还望见谅，如果不是斑竹，或许说出来就不会有这么大争议。

By david

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

wind 如果有一些typo的话 请自己修正下 然后我慢慢砍 同时自己练习的时候要尽量避免噢

这位斑竹请温柔点呀 人家都快上战场了 不能多鼓励鼓励嘛 :D  还说自己空腹改了N篇 好像wind的文章害你吃不上饭似的 偶觉得斑竹不该这么讲话把 :o

flyingwindUID: 189320

最初由 davidjacky 发布
[B]实在抱歉，文章单复数、主被动、动词名词浑为一谈，我空腹改了N篇，前面还挺舒服，觉得不错的文章，你这篇实在让我失望，你来寄托很久了，文章我也看了不少，你怎么了？请修正错误再传，谢谢 [/B]

5555
不好意思！
现在改好了，就在原文里面

flyingwindUID: 189320

最初由 victoriazhizhi 发布
[B]wind 如果有一些typo的话 请自己修正下 然后我慢慢砍 同时自己练习的时候要尽量避免噢

这位斑竹请温柔点呀 人家都快上战场了 不能多鼓励鼓励嘛 :D  还说自己空腹改了N篇..

以下省略...... [/B]

谢谢victoriazhizhi ，真是热心的mm

我的感激之情如滔滔江水连绵不绝啊，西西

however, 是我的错

flyingwindUID: 189320

顶一个

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

I strongly agree with the title statement that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. From the perspective of history of art, the value of artworks had been determined at the moment it was born in the hand of the artist while the critic serves to be footnote to the true masterpiece, which neither diminishes the value of certain art work, nor improves it.

Admittedly, it is not to say that critics are of no use at all.这句admittedly的内容太突然了 In at least three aspects, they function well. First, critics interpret the meaning of artworks or otherwise hidden impulse of society the artworks refer to. Some artworks are abstractly reflections of the inner world of artist; others express the thinking and concern of the artists to their contemporaries events. In the art world, devoid of the help of critics, who, more often than not, have profund knowledge and ample experience as to assess the scope, thoroghness, quality of artworks, the common people cannot "read" artists at heart. Second, a critic serves as a "filter" and helps us to determine which is more likely worthwhile这里这样说怕是显得critic对lasting有了很多作用 and deserved our time and money to focus on, especially considering the myriads of artists existed before and plethora of new pieces emerging everyday. Third, critics can provide feedback, if wholehearted, might help artists improve both their technical and intellectual proficiency. In turn, artist can bring back more excellent works.既然你开头的观点就是critic对value没有增加或者淡化的作用，那么你让步让的内容应该是“尽管，critic可以对作品的长久流传和发扬广大有一定的影响”，然后还是要转回你的观点。你说critic不是一点作用都么有，和你本来提出的观点也不是很符合，因为你只提到了在作品价值上的层面。然后呼呼说了这么多的作用（还包括让人感觉对lasting value有积极影响的一些行为）对你论证真正是artist让作品永恒价值么有多少帮助呀

While it is sound that critics work in above three aspects, close inspection revels that even in the very three aspects; the critics give little realistic value to masterpieces and society. In some cases, they are even counterproductive to the evaluation of artists and their endeavors. The reason lies in two aspects. One is that no one can guarantee that the critique is objective and has no intervention by other factors. For example, if some famous critics are controlled by certain media moguls, who are incline to bolster one artist as well as debase another. Also, consider the critics have some family relationship or close friendship with one artist, maybe the glorification is overrated.

The other factor lies in that the evaluation might be unavoidably limited by the individual perspective and personal favor. In this case, the artists might be just and believable persons and enthusiastic to make right and objective judgment. Unfortunately, due to their personal limitation in knowledge and inquiry, they might make an opposite judgment. Thus, the besmirched masterpiece cannot gain its deserving evaluation. We, common people, might also be misguided by those critics since in our view, they are experts and less make mistakes.

As to the third function of critic, if saying some known artworks are born in the way enduring trial and error process; few masterpieces are produced this way. True measure of art stems from the impact of spirit sparks, the critical thinking to the common life and lonely inquiry to the nature or the society, not in the synthesis of viewpoints of critics. Also, true art masters never pander to the critics for the purpose of improving their reputations and fames; in contrast, they endure the loneliness to develop the laws and principles of nature, human beings and society, exhibit passion and sense in music, painting, novels, sculpture, etc. 看来后面三段明白你为虾米开头要那样让步了，一会下面说

In all, true value of preeminent masterworks lies not in the words of critics, but rather in the lines and colors of paintings, the notes in the symphony, and the staves in the melody. Critic, though do some services to the appreciation for audiences and feedback to the artists, by nature, they come to no good to determine whether an art work is great, or not.

说的挺透彻的，只是对于这样的写法有些疑问，而且我个人也不赞成这样写。领会下题目：谁给了价值？所以：1，做出选择，who？2 为虾米给了价值？（ABC）3 适当让步虽然另一方也有些作用但是还是who给了价值。从你的全篇看几乎都是说critic不能如何正确，客观，实际的评论从而给予价值。几乎没说artist的事儿，不太恰当吧。细致的方面没怎么改，鉴于你这个写法很另类，我建议你让鬼鬼给看看，我说不好。

flyingwindUID: 189320

victoriazhizhi
我是想不是有说critic帮助理解艺术，以及一些作用吗？
我一个个驳倒

按照老外范文的思路写的

鬼谷子UID: 159645

首先说你的观点，又不diminish又不improve，这似乎是不可能的，观点设置的不好。应该说footnote本身是一种improve，至少是帮助大家理解艺术作品，在这种程度上面承认critic的作用，然后再说，主要的作用还是artists的，这样比较合理一点。

B1admittedly那句对于你的观点不是一种矛盾吗？观点更应该修改了。后面的三点对于critic的作用是十分强调了，让人不知道你到底支持的是artists还是critics。建议把让步的部分放在最后，因为重要的内容是放在前面的。而且，对于critics的作用点到而止就可以了，承认他们在某种程度上面有一定的作用，一定要限制再限制。才能体现出artists的重要啊。否则就是偏离了你的观点了。


B2就更不对了，又拿出了一段来说critics，本末倒置了，而且，你说的是realistic value是实际价值，不是lasting value，这一点就有点偏了。再者，你前面对于critics的正面作用过于强调了，这里论述的反面作用显得说服力不强，力度很弱。

B3是说艺术品为什么不能被理解？跟上下文有关系吗？

B4似乎是在对比critics和artists，但是论述的不清楚。

你的文章的问题首先是对于lasting的忽视，然后整个的思路都有点偏，几乎所有的篇幅都是在论证critics对于艺术品的好处和坏处，这样的思路有两个问题：一是你对于critics的正面作用强调到了无以复加的地步，以至于后面的反面没有力度。二是，即使你能证明critics的坏处，那么就一定能说明artists的好处吗？不见得，你写到B4的时候似乎已经注意到了这个问题，但是没有深入，也没有交代清楚。而按照你的观点，你是应该把主要的笔墨放在artists上面的，而不是自己举出一个论断（B1),然后像写argument一样来驳斥。

我觉得你应该重新构思一下。

flyingwindUID: 189320

最初由 鬼谷子 发布
[B]你的文章的问题首先是对于lasting的忽视，然后整个的思路都有点偏，几乎所有的篇幅都是在论证critics对于艺术品的好处和坏处，这样的思路有两个问题：一是你对于critics的正面作用强调到了无以复加的地步，以至于后面的反面没有力度。二是，即使你能证明critics的坏处，那么就一定能说明artists的好处吗？不见得，你写到B4的时候似乎已经注意到了这个问题，但是没有深入，也没有交代清楚。而按照你的观点，你是应该把主要的笔墨放在artists上面的，而不是自己举出一个论断（B1),然后像写argument一样来驳斥。
[/B]

非常感谢!鬼鬼对作文理解很深了,比10g更进一层了
引文这段非常赞同
很有道理!


前面有的地方我有点保留意见.

燃烧的四月UID: 201841

这种格式的好像范文里有件过哦.