issue144 请批必回

Mars3000UID: 198477

[B]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.[/B]

My position:
总体上支持：艺术家即便不是比评论家更重要的话，至少也是同等重要。
A．让步，承认评论家以其特有的视角发现艺术作品的价值
B．介定何为艺术的恒久价值。提出价值是有艺术家创造的，具有客观性，评论家只是帮助人们认识到本以存在的事物。
C．探讨两种意义上艺术家与评论家的作用
总结：呼吁人们对艺术家给予更多的关注。

In a world full of aspiration to become famous at one night and impetus to get acknowledged by the public, every person is eager to find a easy way to success, while something valuable, but with a long time known, can hardly find their space. In this case, critics who can discover a fortune in a block of seemingly ordinary works appear more and more popular; by contrast, the artists, those creating great works of lasting value, are gradually ignored. As far as I am concerned, the contribution of artists is as much as, if not more than that of critics, those who introduce the works to the public and help them know their values.

Critics, admittedly, play a rather important role in finding the value of works, for their acute insight to these works. Since critics are people specially trained to appreciate arts, they can understand ideas of artists from their works, and catch the their values behind. Quite a few great works remained ordinary, in that artists’ talent origination implied in them could not be accepted by the masses. In the perspective of critics, however, they are distinguished, and they become famous soon after being introduced to the public, much the way what happens between a singer and a headhunter, the potential ability of the former being discovered by the later, and he or she getting popular soon. Without the headhunter, the singer might only sing for persons around every day, in spite of tune.

However, a fact must be pointed out that it is the artists who create works with lasting value, whereas critics only help this value found and accepted, who do not increase the value of those great ones. The values in great works, something with creators' feelings and ideas, has existed since the birth of these works, which is what artists want to tell the public, such as their views to the world, the beauty of nature, a desire for peace or certain power of gods. It is objective and constant, and would still exist even without the appearance of critics, although the standards to evaluate  this value differs sometimes for the changes of people's thought. As a proverb goes "Gold shines wherever it is.", the value of great works is everlasting at any time although it would take a longer time to convince the public to accept it without critics’ introduction. In addition some great arts, those of Leonardo da vinci for example, are so wonderful that they were universally highly valued since their appearance.  

In a sense, if it is understood that to create value is equal to give society this value, the contribution of critics will become much less; nevertheless, if considering that the value of great works get meaningful only when it is acknowledged by the public, the work of critics would be thought more highly, since some works became invaluable after their recommendation. Just for this reason, the contribution of critics seems overestimated somewhat and some artists even drop their own ideas, choosing certain kind of styles to cater to them. This seems a behavior according with the market law, and it would prevail in a material society, because artists complete products according to the tastes of their audience, but it is a dangerous inclination really, for destroying the base of this lasting value¬-- independent creation.

So far, people depend on critics to reveal the value of artists' works too much, this being unreasonable. If paying more attention to the artists, or trying to understand their opinions, we would give them large encourage to create without the worry of being neglected, and moreover help ourselves appreciate their works in the prospective of our own.

laofoUID: 165673

No.1 issue144 请批必回
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.

My position:
总体上支持：艺术家即便不是比评论家更重要的话，至少也是同等重要。
A．让步，承认评论家以其特有的视角发现艺术作品的价值
B．介定何为艺术的恒久价值。提出价值是有艺术家创造的，具有客观性，评论家只是帮助人们认识到本以存在的事物。
C．探讨两种意义[?]上艺术家与评论家的作用
总结：呼吁人们对艺术家给予更多的关注。

In a world full of aspiration to become famous at one night and impetus to get acknowledged by the public, every person is eager to find a easy way to success, while something 【Is】valuable, but with【in】 a long time known【有点中式的味道Known这里用的不好】, can hardly find their space【该用复数么？】. In this case, critics who can discover a fortune in a block of seemingly ordinary works appear more and more popular; by contrast【by contrast with ＋Critics】, the artists, those 【同位语？】creating great works of lasting value, are gradually ignored. As far as I am concerned, the contribution of artists is as much as, if not more than that of critics, those who introduce the works to the public and help them know their values.

Critics, admittedly, play a rather【这个词不好，Vital】 important role in finding the value of works, for their acute insight to these works. Since critics are people specially trained to appreciate arts, they can understand ideas of artists from their works, and catch the【删，以下空括号表示删】 their values behind. Quite a few 【Considerable】great works remained ordinary, in that artists’ talent origination implied in them could not be accepted by the masses. In the perspective of critics, however, they are distinguished, and they become famous soon after being introduced to the public, much the way what happens between a singer and a headhunter, the potential ability of the former being discovered by the later, and he or she getting popular soon. Without the headhunter, the singer might only sing for persons around every day, in spite of tune.【最后一句不太顺】

However, a fact must be pointed out that it is the artists who create works with lasting value, whereas critics only help this value found and accepted, who do not increase the value of those great ones. The values in great works, something with creators' feelings and ideas, has existed since the birth of these works, which is what artists want to tell the public, such as their views to the world, the beauty of nature, a desire for peace or certain power of gods. It is objective and constant, and would still exist even without the appearance of critics, although the standards to evaluate this value differs sometimes for the changes of people's thought. As a proverb goes "Gold shines wherever it is.", the value of great works is everlasting at any time although it would take a longer time to convince the public to accept it without critics’ introduction. In addition some great arts, those of Leonardo da vinci for example, are so wonderful that they were universally highly valued since their appearance.

In a sense, if it is understood that to create value is equal to give society this value, the contribution of critics will become much less; nevertheless, if considering that the value of great works get meaningful only when it is acknowledged by the public, the work of critics would be thought more highly, since some works became invaluable after their recommendation. Just for this reason, the contribution of critics seems overestimated somewhat and some artists even drop their own ideas, choosing certain kind of styles to cater to them. This seems a behavior according with the market law, and it would prevail in a material society, because artists complete products according to the tastes of their audience, but it is a dangerous inclination really, for destroying the base of this lasting value¬-- independent creation.

So far, people depend on critics to reveal the value of artists' works too much, this being unreasonable. If paying more attention to the artists, or trying to understand their opinions, we would give them large encourage to create【Vt＋n】 without the worry of being neglected, and moreover help ourselves appreciate their works in the prospective of our own.



PS：实在式对不起，保安来了，
太晚了，后两段就没怎么改

dream a dreamUID: 198106

My position:
总体上支持：艺术家即便不是比评论家更重要的话，至少也是同等重要。
A．让步，承认评论家以其特有的视角发现艺术作品的价值
B．介定何为艺术的恒久价值。提出价值是有艺术家创造的，具有客观性，评论家只是帮助人们认识到本以存在的事物。
C．探讨两种意义上艺术家与评论家的作用
总结：呼吁人们对艺术家给予更多的关注。

In a world full of aspiration to become famous at one night and impetus to get acknowledged by the public, every person is eager to find a easy way to success, while something valuable, but with a long time known, can hardly find their space. In this case, critics who can discover a fortune in a block of seemingly ordinary works appear more and more popular; by contrast, the artists, those creating great works of lasting value, are gradually ignored. As far as I am concerned, the contribution of artists is as much as, if not more than that of critics, those who introduce the works to the public and help them know their values.


Critics, admittedly, play a rather important role in finding the value of works, for their acute insight to these works. Since critics are people specially trained to appreciate arts, they can understand ideas of artists from their works, and catch the their values behind. Quite a few great works remained ordinary, in that artists’ talent origination implied in them could not be accepted by the masses. In the perspective of critics, however, they are distinguished, and they become famous soon after being introduced to the public, much the way what happens between a singer and a headhunter, the potential ability of the former being discovered by the later, and he or she getting popular soon. Without the headhunter, the singer might only sing for persons around every day, in spite of tune.

[I think you confused two things, the one critics find the value of artworks and the one critics help the artist famous. You discussed about the latter one, and I think it weaken your main idea.]

However, a fact must be pointed out that it is the artists who create works with lasting value, whereas critics only help this value found and accepted, who do not increase the value of those great ones. The values in great works, something with creators' feelings and ideas, has existed since the birth of these works, which is what artists want to tell the public, such as their views to the world, the beauty of nature, a desire for peace or certain power of gods. It is objective and constant, and would still exist even without the appearance of critics, although the standards to evaluate this value differs sometimes for the changes of people's thought. As a proverb goes "Gold shines wherever it is.", the value of great works is everlasting at any time although it would take a longer time to convince the public to accept it without critics’ introduction. In addition some great arts, those of Leonardo da vinci for example, are so wonderful that they were universally highly valued since their appearance.

[This paragraph is good]

In a sense, if it is understood that to create value is equal to give society this value, the contribution of critics will become much less; nevertheless, if considering that the value of great works get meaningful only when it is acknowledged by the public, the work of critics would be thought more highly, since some works became invaluable after their recommendation. Just for this reason, the contribution of critics seems overestimated somewhat and some artists even drop their own ideas, choosing certain kind of styles to cater to them. This seems a behavior according with the market law, and it would prevail in a material society, because artists complete products according to the tastes of their audience, but it is a dangerous inclination really, for destroying the base of this lasting value¬-- independent creation.

So far, people depend on critics to reveal the value of artists' works too much, this being unreasonable. If paying more attention to the artists, or trying to understand their opinions, we would give them large encourage to create without the worry of being neglected, and moreover help ourselves appreciate their works in the prospective of our own.


There are some grammar mistakes in your article, but I think your logic is ok, and your article is the only one that I can understand very well among all these 144 works I checked today. I think your first two paragraph is a little weak to domonstrate your main idea clearly, because till I finished reading I can understand your logic, and at first, I am confused.

sblbaslerUID: 175229

占个座，上午要上课，中午回来给你改

Mars3000UID: 198477

谢谢dream兄

[B]I think you confused two things, the one critics find the value of artworks and the one critics help the artist famous. You discussed about the latter one, and I think it weaken your main idea.[/B]

这是个顺承关系啊：评论家发现价值——向公众介绍这一价值——公众承认这种价值——艺术家声名鹊起

[B]and your article is the only one that I can understand very well among all these 144 works I checked today. [/B]  汗颜：足见我的文章写的多么没有深度,词汇是何等的贫乏

sblbaslerUID: 175229

In a world full of aspiration to become famous at one night and impetus to get acknowledged by the public, every person is eager to find [B][U]a [/U]  [/B]  [B][低级错误][/B] easy way to success, while something valuable[U], but with a long time known[/U] , [B][似乎有点问题，你想表达的什么意思][/B] [U]can hardly find their space.[/U]  [B][你是说something can hardly find their（应该用its吧）space么，比较费解][/B] In this case,  critics who can discover a fortune in a block of seemingly ordinary works appear more and more popular; by contrast, the artists, those creating great works of lasting value, are gradually ignored. As far as I am concerned, the contribution of artists is as much as, if not more than that of critics, those who introduce the works to the public and help them know their values.
[B]你前面两处比较别扭的话影响了整段的效果[/B]
Critics, admittedly, play a rather important role in finding the value of works, for their acute insight[B]s[/B]  to these works. Since critics are people specially trained to appreciate arts, they can understand ideas of artists from [U]their[/U] [B][指的谁？你这么写似乎是指评论家而实际应该是艺术家吧][/B]  works, and catch [U]the their [/U]  values[U] behind[/U] .[B][值得商榷][/B]  Quite a few great works remained ordinary, in that artists’ talent origination implied in them could not be accepted by the masses. In the perspective of critics, however, they are distinguished, and they become famous soon after being introduced to the public, much the way what happens between a singer and a headhunter, the potential ability of the former being discovered by the later, and he or she getting popular soon. [B]这个类比不是很恰当，因为几乎所有著名的歌手都是经过包装的换句话说他们都要感谢critics，而真正有持久价值的艺术大部分是不需要的，个人观点，我也说不好这个到底那里不行，反正要就是做这个类比也没什么大问题，我有点吹毛求疵的感觉][/B] Without the headhunter, the singer might only sing for persons around every day, in spite of tune.
[B][例子完了怎么就完了呢，最起码自己再总结两句吧][/B]
However, a fact must be pointed out that it is the artists who create works with lasting value, whereas critics only help this value found and accepted, who do not increase the value of those great ones. The values in great works, something with creators' feelings and ideas, has existed since the birth of these works, which is what artists want to tell the public, such as their views to the world, the beauty of nature, a desire for peace or certain power of gods. It is objective and constant, and would still exist even without the appearance of critics, although the standards to evaluate this value differs sometimes for the changes of people's thought. As a proverb goes "Gold shines wherever it is.", the value of great works is everlasting at any time although it would take a longer time to convince the public to accept it without critics’ introduction. In addition some great arts, those of Leonardo da vinci for example, are so wonderful that they were universally highly valued since their appearance.

In a sense, if it is understood that to create value is equal to give society this value, the contribution of critics will become much[U] less[/U] ; nevertheless, if considering that the value of great works get meaningful only when it is acknowledged by the public, the work of critics would be thought more [U]highly[/U] , since some works became invaluable after their recommendation. Just for this reason, the contribution of critics seems overestimated somewhat and some artists even drop their own ideas, choosing certain kind of styles to cater to them. This seems a behavior according with the market law, and it would prevail in a material society, because artists complete products according to the tastes of their audience, but it is a dangerous inclination really, for destroying the base of this lasting value¬-- independent creation.

So far, people depend on critics to reveal the value of artists' works too much, [U]this being unreasonable[/U] . If paying more attention to the artists, or trying to understand their opinions, we would give them l[U]arge [/U]  encourage to create [U]without the worry of being neglected[/U] , [B][艺术家没这种想法吧][/B] and moreover help ourselves appreciate their works in the prospective of our own.

[B]从这篇文章可以看出来你在刻意使用长句（如果我说错了就当我XX），但效果不是很好，因为你写的断断续续，而且充斥着大量的被动语态，叫人比较难读懂，再有你的用词太“幼稚”。第二个问题就是我觉得你的提纲中3个段落间的逻辑关系不是很明确，总感觉别扭，但又不知道到底哪不好，把A与B换一下？好象也不太好。再改改吧，加油！[/B]

Mars3000UID: 198477

好，一定改！
晚上吧，然后请兄台务必使劲拍。

dream a dreamUID: 198106

我觉得好文章不在词汇多么生僻，而是要尽量让人读懂你的逻辑。大家的阅读水平应该差不多自同一条线上，如果读者感到很晦涩，那就不是好文章。我是有感于一些文章过渡追求漂亮词藻和复杂的句式，有点舍本逐末。

Mars3000UID: 198477

受教了！

Mars3000UID: 198477

按各位兄台提的意见修改过了
但自己的提纲在逻辑上很难把自己驳倒
不过更细致的列了一下
文章在一些用词和句式上也做了一些调整

My position:
总体上支持：艺术家即便不是比评论家更重要的话，至少也是同等重要。
首先让步，承认评论家的贡献，即以其特有的视角发现艺术作品的价值
介定何为艺术的恒久价值。强调价值是有艺术家创造的，具有客观性，这一价值并不因评定标准的不同而变化。评论家的作用只是帮助人们认识到本以存在的事物。
探讨两种意义上艺术家与评论家的作用，并指出过分强调评论家的后果
总结：呼吁人们对艺术家给予更多的关注。

In a world full of aspiration to become famous at one night and impetus to get acknowledged by the public, every person is eager to find an easy way to success, while something valuable, but recognized after a long time, can hardly find its space. In this case, critics who can discover a fortune in a block of seemingly ordinary works appear more and more popular; by contrast, the artists, those creating great artworks of lasting value, are gradually ignored. As far as I am concerned,  the contribution of artists is as much as, if not more than that of critics,   这句话到底应如何翻译  who introduce and interpret these works to public. 请问这里应是to public, to publics or to the public

First it must be admitted that critics play a extraordinarily important role in exploring the value of works in many cases, for their acute insight on them. Since critics are people specially trained to appreciate arts, they can comprehend ideas of artists from their works, and catch the values behind concealed . Quite a few great works remained unknown, in that the masses could not accept the talent origination of artists. In the perspective of critics, however, they were distinguished. And  after being introduced to the public, they become famous soon , much the way what occurs between a singer and a headhunter, the potential ability of the former being discovered by the later, and he or she getting popular or even world-famous soon. Without the headhunter, the singer might only perform for persons around , in spite of a sweet tune.Similarly,  if critics never came to this world, a large number of outstanding artworks would spend a lonely time with their value buried.  个人感觉这个例子尚可，因为猎头公司制发掘人才，至于包装歌手，那则是唱片公司的事了

However, a fact must be pointed out that it is the artists who create artworks with lasting value, whereas critics only help this value found and accepted,but  never increase any value of those great ones. The lasting values in great works, something with creators' feelings and ideas, has existed since the birth of these works, which is what artists want to tell the public, such as their views to the world, the beauty of nature, a desire for peace or certain power of gods. It is objective and constant, authentic and infectious. It would remain even without the appearance of critics, or even with the standards to evaluate this value differing sometimes for the changes of people's thought. As a proverb goes, "Gold shines wherever it is.", the value of great works is everlasting at any time ,though, without critics’ introduction , it would take a longer time to convince the public to accept it. In addition ,some excellent works, paintings of  Leonardo da vinci or symphonies of Beethoven for example, are so splendid that they were universally recognized without any interpretation of critics.  

In a sense, if it is understood that to create value is equal to give society this value, the contribution of critics will become quite less; nevertheless, if considering that the value of great works get meaningful only when acknowledged by the public, the work of critics would be thought higher, since some artworks became invaluable after their recommendation. Just for this reason, the contribution of critics appears overestimated somewhat and more seriously, certain artists even drop their own ideas, turning to certain kind of styles to cater to them. This seems a behavior according with the market law, and their work would prevail in a material society, because artists complete products according to the tastes of their audience. It is a dangerous inclination nevertheless, for destroying the base of this lasting value­-- independent creation.

So far, people excessively depend on critics to reveal the value of artists' works, this being unreasonable  这不算是独立主格结构吗？ . If paying more attention to the artists, or trying to grasp their opinions, we would give them large encourage to create without the worry of being neglected此处为了和第一段艺术家不受重视呼应, and moreover help ourselves appreciate their works in the prospectives of our own.