issue144 [color=#0000ff]同主题写作

龙非UID: 193190

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.
*************************************************************
Is it the artist, not the critic, who gives something of lasting value to society? To answer the question, we should first make clear that what is so called "something of lasting value". I believe in the context, "something of lasting value" means some lasting valuable works of art. Under this precondition, I concede the artist plays a very important role in the process of giving society some lastingly valuable works of arts. Yet in my view, the artist could hardly effectively make his works best-known and affecting society a long time without the critic's help. The artist and the critic have to stand together to give society some lasting valuable works of art.

On one hand, the artist is indispensable to give some lastingly valuable works of arts to society. Without the works created by the artist, we make nonsense of so called "giving society something of lasting value". Without the artist, where come from these works which will give society something of lasting value? The answer is easy to be given that it is nowhere. Without Rodin, there would be no The Thinker; Without Shakerspeare, there would be no The Hamlet. Without Vinci, there would be no The Mona Lisa. Therefore, the artist plays a vital role in giving society some works with lasting value.

On the other hand, the critic also plays a vital part in the lasting valuable works of arts. The critic is the bridge between the artist and the common people, who help the common people to appreciate the great works created by the artist and to recognize their value, thereby these works become widespread and come down from generation to generation, which means that the works become lastingly valuable. What these great works would be like without the critic's benefit? Without the critic's help, most valuable works, which are used to express personal feeling and criticism of society by the artist, are too abstract and too difficult to be understood by the common people. Consequently, they are impossible to be best known. Moreover, they are impossible to be lastingly valuable. For supporting examples we need look no further than Van Gogh two of whose painting now sale nearly fifty millions. In Van Gogh's career, he sold only one of his paintings and one of the important reasons was that few people could understand his painting, even the professional critic. We can easily imagine that if nothing else happened to change all these. All Van Gogh’s paintings will be buried in the history and we have no chance to apprieciate these lastingly valuable paintings. Fortunately, the critics recognized the value of Van Gogh's painting after his death and led these paintings to the public, ultimately, come down to us. From Van Gogh's experience, we can draw a conclusion that the critic is important without whose help the lasting value of a work could hardly to be recognized.

In sum, from what has been discussed above, we may finally draw the conclusion that without the artist, "giving society something of lasting value" is nonsense, and without the critic, a work of art could hardly to be lastingly valuable one. Only when they cooperate, that is to say, the artist creates great works and the critic helps the common people to appreciate these works, society would be benefit to get something of lasting value.

×××××××××××××××××××××××××××
补上提纲，看起来清楚一点：
position：
所谓有永久价值的东西就是一些有永久价值的艺术作品，只有艺术家和评论家一起合作才可能带给社会这些永久价值的艺术作品
B1：为了给社会有永久价值的作品，艺术家不可缺少，艺术家创造作品是前提。
B2：评论家也很重要，没有评论家，艺术家创造的作品很难被人们理解，流传下去，从而具有永久的价值
结论：没有艺术家不行，没有评论家也不行，只有两者一起合作才可以带给社会有永恒价值的艺术作品

嗯，写完提纲就发现了问题，各段的TS没有很好地点出意思。。。要改啦。。

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

Is it the artist, not the critic, who gives something of lasting value to society? 哼唧哼唧，偶不稀饭这种开头，纯粹个人感觉。没记错的话你上篇也是这么开的To answer the question, we should first make clear that what is so called "something of lasting value". I believe in the context, "something of lasting value" means some lasting valuable works of art.这里解释出来虾米了？没明白 Under this precondition, I concede the artist plays a very important role in the process of giving society some lastingly valuable works of arts.噢，想出来了，不过上文的解释欠明确，用题目给的词解释题目给的的定义，sigh Yet in my view, the artist could hardly effectively make his works best-known and affecting society a long time without the critic's help. The artist and the critic have to stand together to give society some lasting valuable works of art.嗯，后面观点的提出不错

On one hand, the artist is indispensable to give some lastingly valuable works of arts to society. Without the works created by the artist, we make nonsense of so called "giving society something of lasting value". Without the artist, where come from these works which will give society something of lasting value? The answer is easy to be given that it is nowhere. Without Rodin, there would be no The Thinker; Without Shakerspeare, there would be no The Hamlet. Without Vinci, there would be no The Mona Lisa. Therefore, the artist plays a vital role in giving society some works with lasting value.8知道是不是我的理解问题，我总感觉你没把为虾米and怎么样artists让work有lasing value，说没有艺术家怎么会有作品，这不是现有事实嘛，艺术家的作品为虾米会lasting，比如技巧精湛了，富于美感了，代表一个社会的文化了，符合大众的口味拉虾米玩意。题目问的是谁能让lasting 你的观点两个同时，你要说为虾米艺术家让lasting，你说的只是个前提，艺术家创作了作品

On the other hand, the critic also plays a vital part in the lasting valuable works of arts. The critic is the bridge between the artist and the common people, who help the common people to appreciate the great works created by the artist and to recognize their value, thereby these works become widespread and come down from generation to generation, which means that the works become lastingly valuable. What these great works would be like without the critic's benefit? Without the critic's help, most valuable works, which are used to express personal feeling and criticism of society by the artist, are too abstract and too difficult to be understood by the common people. 8错，这里分析比较透Consequently, they are impossible to be best known. Moreover, they are impossible to be lastingly valuable. 这句绝对了，应该说是容易被社会忽略了价值，对流传有限制For supporting examples we need look no further than Van Gogh two of whose painting now sale nearly fifty millions. In Van Gogh's career, he sold only one of his paintings and one of the important reasons was that few people could understand his painting, even the professional critic. critic都不懂怎么办呀？怎么long lastingWe can easily imagine that if nothing else happened to change all these. All Van Gogh’s paintings will be buried in the history and we have no chance to apprieciate these lastingly valuable paintings. Fortunately, the critics recognized the value of Van Gogh's painting after his death and led these paintings to the public, ultimately, come down to us.这里多句看法，问问。critic一会看不懂，过了那个时代一会又看懂了，因此就流传了，吓人，那要是还看不懂呢？这里的crtic另一个作用不是能不能理解的问题，而是随着时代的变化他们的知识和思想同样在变化，因为评论是一件比较主观的事，在某个时代上，人们的思想比如受到当时的思潮了虾米的影响对他们的判断有限制作用，因此没有把凡高的前卫和抽象认出来，但是由于时代在进步，评论家更富于敏感性和专业性，于是比常人更能接近这些作品的精髓，所以才是需要critic的地方，才能达到真正的long lasting。凡高的例子用的不错，但是里面有些让人疑问的地方你没有解释明白，没有把critic对于一个作品lasting value的真正作用说清楚 From Van Gogh's experience, we can draw a conclusion that the critic is important without whose help the lasting value of a work could hardly to be recognized.

In sum, from what has been discussed above, we may finally draw the conclusion that without the artist, "giving society something of lasting value" is nonsense, and without the critic, a work of art could hardly to be lastingly valuable one. Only when they cooperate, that is to say, the artist creates great works and the critic helps the common people to appreciate these works, society would be benefit to get something of lasting value.

B1有些匆忙，问题实质没说透，B2整体还不错，例子的分析稍微斟酌下。别的没虾米问题，你的思路和条例，以及论证过程都比较好的说，羡慕。改的眼泪稀哩哗啦流，你要请我饭饭娃哈哈阿

boyjimUID: 125249

Is it the artist, not the critic, who gives something of lasting value to society? To answer [dispute] the question, we should first make clear [clearify] that [去掉that] what is so called "something of lasting value". I believe in the context, "something of lasting value" means some lasting valuable works of art. Under this precondition, I concede the artist plays a very important role in the process of giving society some lastingly valuable works of arts. Yet in my view, the artist could hardly effectively make his works best-known and affecting society a long time without the critic's help. The artist and the critic have to stand together to give society some lasting valuable works of art. [论点新颖！！！]

On one hand, the artist is indispensable to give some lastingly [perpetually/ eternally...太多了~] valuable works of arts to society. Without the works created by the artist, we make nonsense of so called "giving society something of lasting value". Without the artist, where come from these works which will give society something of lasting value? [反问句有点问题] The answer is easy to be given that it is nowhere. [直接运用短句，冗长] Without Rodin, there would be no The Thinker; Without Shakerspeare, there would be no The Hamlet. Without [Da] Vinci, there would be no The Mona Lisa. [着排比可以做得更好！:D] Therefore, the artist plays a vital [and pivital] role in giving society some works with lasting value.

On the other hand, the critic also plays a vital [and pivotal帮你来个尾韵嘿嘿] part in the lasting valuable works of arts. The critic is the bridge between the artist and the common people, who help the common people [重复大忌阿] to appreciate the great works created by the artist and to recognize their value, thereby these works become widespread and come down from generation to generation, which [不要老用定于从句，换个分词做状语] means that the works become lastingly valuable. [句子长的有点过分了~] What these great works would be like without the critic's benefit? Without the critic's help, most valuable works, which are used to express personal feeling and criticism of society by the artist, are too abstract and too difficult to be understood by the common people. Consequently, they are impossible to be best [well] known. Moreover, they are impossible [换个说法把这个词换掉] to be lastingly valuable. For supporting examples we need look no further than Van Gogh two of whose painting now sale nearly fifty millions. In Van Gogh's career, he sold only one of his paintings and one of the important reasons was that few people could understand his painting, even the professional critic. We can easily imagine that if nothing else happened to change all these. All Van Gogh’s paintings will be buried in the history and we have no chance to apprieciate these lastingly valuable paintings. Fortunately, the critics recognized the value of Van Gogh's painting after his death and led these paintings to the public, ultimately, come down to us. From Van Gogh's experience, we can draw a conclusion that the critic is important without whose help the lasting value of a work could hardly to be recognized. [例子拿来充数了~这样不太好~这个例子本来就滥~]

In sum, from what has been discussed above, we may finally draw the conclusion that without the artist, "giving society something of lasting value" is nonsense, and without the critic, a work of art could hardly to be lastingly valuable one. Only when they cooperate, that is to say, the artist creates great works and the critic helps the common people to appreciate these works, society would be benefit to get something of lasting value. [说得有点罗索~]

[两方面来说~观点新颖 例子陈旧 且太长 值得深入探究~说理的部分应该再长点！]

鬼谷子UID: 159645

龙非的新作哦，看看

sblbaslerUID: 175229

本来想改的，这么多人都给你改了而且都是比较牛的，还有鬼鬼，我就不来献丑了！

龙非UID: 193190

to 吱吱

Is it the artist, not the critic, who gives something of lasting value to society? 哼唧哼唧，偶不稀饭这种开头，纯粹个人感觉。没记错的话你上篇也是这么开的 冤枉，绝对地冤枉，不过俺已经准备以后都这样用了:D，开头不想废太多时间啦，除非考试的时候剩下大把时间，嘿嘿To answer the question, we should first make clear that what is so called "something of lasting value". I believe in the context, "something of lasting value" means some lasting valuable works of art.这里解释出来虾米了？没明白 Under this precondition, I concede the artist plays a very important role in the process of giving society some lastingly valuable works of arts.噢，想出来了，不过上文的解释欠明确，用题目给的词解释题目给的的定义， 确实，用题目给的词来解释有点不是很妥sigh Yet in my view, the artist could hardly effectively make his works best-known and affecting society a long time without the critic's help. The artist and the critic have to stand together to give society some lasting valuable works of art.嗯，后面观点的提出不错

On one hand, the artist is indispensable to give some lastingly valuable works of arts to society. Without the works created by the artist, we make nonsense of so called "giving society something of lasting value". Without the artist, where come from these works which will give society something of lasting value? The answer is easy to be given that it is nowhere. Without Rodin, there would be no The Thinker; Without Shakerspeare, there would be no The Hamlet. Without Vinci, there would be no The Mona Lisa. Therefore, the artist plays a vital role in giving society some works with lasting value.8知道是不是我的理解问题，我总感觉你没把为虾米and怎么样artists让work有lasing value，说没有艺术家怎么会有作品，这不是现有事实嘛，艺术家的作品为虾米会lasting，比如技巧精湛了，富于美感了，代表一个社会的文化了，符合大众的口味拉虾米玩意。题目问的是谁能让lasting 你的观点两个同时，你要说为虾米艺术家让lasting，你说的只是个前提，艺术家创作了作品 我的观点是只有两个人合作才能有lastingly valuable works，不是说艺术家也可以，评论家也可以，嘿嘿。So，这一段论证的就是艺术家很重要，没有艺术家就谈不上给什么什么东东，因为没有艺术家就没有艺术品，没有艺术品就没有something of lasting value

On the other hand, the critic also plays a vital part in the lasting valuable works of arts. The critic is the bridge between the artist and the common people, who help the common people to appreciate the great works created by the artist and to recognize their value, thereby these works become widespread and come down from generation to generation, which means that the works become lastingly valuable. What these great works would be like without the critic's benefit? Without the critic's help, most valuable works, which are used to express personal feeling and criticism of society by the artist, are too abstract and too difficult to be understood by the common people. 8错，这里分析比较透Consequently, they are impossible to be best known. Moreover, they are impossible to be lastingly valuable. 这句绝对了，应该说是容易被社会忽略了价值，对流传有限制 我的理解是没人懂，就不可能流传，自然也就不可能有什么lasting 的价值了，不过用词是绝对了。。。，改For supporting examples we need look no further than Van Gogh two of whose painting now sale nearly fifty millions. In Van Gogh's career, he sold only one of his paintings and one of the important reasons was that few people could understand his painting, even the professional critic. critic都不懂怎么办呀？怎么long lasting 嘿嘿，下面就解释啦，都没有人懂那么这些作品就废了，不见天日啦We can easily imagine that if nothing else happened to change all these. All Van Gogh’s paintings will be buried in the history and we have no chance to apprieciate these lastingly valuable paintings. Fortunately, the critics recognized the value of Van Gogh's painting after his death and led these paintings to the public, ultimately, come down to us.这里多句看法，问问。critic一会看不懂，过了那个时代一会又看懂了，因此就流传了，吓人，那要是还看不懂呢？ 我的看法是如果根本就没有人懂的艺术品就不会流传到现在，成为一个lastingly valuable的东东了。这里的crtic另一个作用不是能不能理解的问题，而是随着时代的变化他们的知识和思想同样在变化，因为评论是一件比较主观的事，在某个时代上，人们的思想比如受到当时的思潮了虾米的影响对他们的判断有限制作用，因此没有把凡高的前卫和抽象认出来，但是由于时代在进步，评论家更富于敏感性和专业性，于是比常人更能接近这些作品的精髓，所以才是需要critic的地方，才能达到真正的long lasting。凡高的例子用的不错，但是里面有些让人疑问的地方你没有解释明白，没有把critic对于一个作品lasting value的真正作用说清楚 看到这里，我明白了你我对lasting value的理解不一样，造成了这么多的问题，我理解的lasting value，就是艺术作品一直能够一代代流传下去，从而last，而不是它有多么高的价值。因此，评论家的作用就在于给出一些评价，让人们能够接受这些作品是有价值的，使得这些作品流传下去，从而体现了作品的lasting value。From Van Gogh's experience, we can draw a conclusion that the critic is important without whose help the lasting value of a work could hardly to be recognized.

In sum, from what has been discussed above, we may finally draw the conclusion that without the artist, "giving society something of lasting value" is nonsense, and without the critic, a work of art could hardly to be lastingly valuable one. Only when they cooperate, that is to say, the artist creates great works and the critic helps the common people to appreciate these works, society would be benefit to get something of lasting value.

B1有些匆忙，问题实质没说透，B2整体还不错，例子的分析稍微斟酌下。别的没虾米问题，你的思路和条例，以及论证过程都比较好的说，羡慕。改的眼泪稀哩哗啦流，你要请我饭饭娃哈哈阿
饭饭没问题的说。。。整体来说，这一篇的思路不够清晰，所以对你的意见也废了很长时间去解释，看来又要给修改版了。。。

龙非UID: 193190

to boyjim：

Is it the artist, not the critic, who gives something of lasting value to society? To answer [dispute] the question, we should first make clear [clearify] clarify:D that [去掉that] what is so called "something of lasting value". I believe in the context, "something of lasting value" means some lasting valuable works of art. Under this precondition, I concede the artist plays a very important role in the process of giving society some lastingly valuable works of arts. Yet in my view, the artist could hardly effectively make his works best-known and affecting society a long time without the critic's help. The artist and the critic have to stand together to give society some lasting valuable works of art. [论点新颖！！！]

On one hand, the artist is indispensable to give some lastingly [perpetually/ eternally...太多了~] 哈哈，确实，写的时候就没转过来，从你两个词的修改已经看出语言功底啦，pfpf valuable works of arts to society. Without the works created by the artist, we make nonsense of so called "giving society something of lasting value". Without the artist, where come from these works which will give society something of lasting value? [反问句有点问题] 什么问题？？ The answer is easy to be given that it is nowhere. [直接运用短句，冗长] 说得好，在这里短句读起来有气势点 Without Rodin, there would be no The Thinker; Without Shakerspeare, there would be no The Hamlet. Without [Da] Vinci, there would be no The Mona Lisa. [着排比可以做得更好！ ] 这不是排比了吗？？语言弱，请指教  Therefore, the artist plays a vital [and pivital] pivotal role in giving society some works with lasting value.

On the other hand, the critic also plays a vital [and pivotal帮你来个尾韵嘿嘿] part in the lasting valuable works of arts. The critic is the bridge between the artist and the common people, who help the common people [重复大忌阿] 词汇匮乏就是这样的，sigh。。。 to appreciate the great works created by the artist and to recognize their value, thereby these works become widespread and come down from generation to generation, which [不要老用定于从句，换个分词做状语] 嗯，惊醒梦中人means that the works become lastingly valuable. [句子长的有点过分了~] What these great works would be like without the critic's benefit? Without the critic's help, most valuable works, which are used to express personal feeling and criticism of society by the artist, are too abstract and too difficult to be understood by the common people. Consequently, they are impossible to be best [well] known. Moreover, they are impossible [换个说法把这个词换掉] to be lastingly valuable. For supporting examples we need look no further than Van Gogh two of whose painting now sale nearly fifty millions. In Van Gogh's career, he sold only one of his paintings and one of the important reasons was that few people could understand his painting, even the professional critic. We can easily imagine that if nothing else happened to change all these. All Van Gogh’s paintings will be buried in the history and we have no chance to apprieciate these lastingly valuable paintings. Fortunately, the critics recognized the value of Van Gogh's painting after his death and led these paintings to the public, ultimately, come down to us. From Van Gogh's experience, we can draw a conclusion that the critic is important without whose help the lasting value of a work could hardly to be recognized. [例子拿来充数了~这样不太好~这个例子本来就滥~] 例子可不是充数的哦，不过有点滥，再想想

In sum, from what has been discussed above, we may finally draw the conclusion that without the artist, "giving society something of lasting value" is nonsense, and without the critic, a work of art could hardly to be lastingly valuable one. Only when they cooperate, that is to say, the artist creates great works and the critic helps the common people to appreciate these works, society would be benefit to get something of lasting value. [说得有点罗索~]

龙非UID: 193190

to 鬼鬼
占了座要交作业哦:D

to sblbasler
同样要交作业哦，不要找借口，嘿嘿:D

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

1，你说的两方面合作才能有价值是对的，但是这样对艺术家来说，貌似只用创作出来个作品就完事儿了，怎么让lasting？然后你会说有critic呢，怕什么？那你说你的意思是不是还是critics给了作品lasitng value？既然是合作，既然是相辅相成的，艺术家的作用就没那么简单，要想lasting不是只要创作出来就完了，要他们自己使他们的作品更特别，更受人喜爱，更技艺精湛。你说了么？没有艺术家就谈不上给了什么价值，这个也太。。。诶我说不好我觉得要是这么简单就不用论了，这只是个前提，价值的问题还要仔细说说

2，就算是我对lasting value和你理解不一致，也不影响我说那一堆B2里的话。关于评论家的作用。你说是作出评价，使得流传。那你自己的例子，凡高那个年代professional critic（你还用professional来强调评论家评论不出来，sigh）不就没做出来评价么？那为虾米后来的就又评价出来了？这不是让人疑问么？万一后人也没看出来价值呢（其实也无所谓，那就没价值呗嘿嘿）？所以critic让作品lasting 让一代一代流传关键在于他们有敏锐的视角，比常人更厉害的洞察力，即便评论是个主观的事儿，在一个时代会受到限制，但是随着认识的发展，他们还是能捕捉到被遗忘的精华。这些不影响你定义的lasing value

龙非UID: 193190

to 吱吱，很感谢你的大力支持，看来饭饭是怎么也逃不了了。。。
下面我从整体总结一下我们的意见，看看我的理解有没有问题先

论点：只有A和B合起来才可以做C事
我的意见：
因为
1)        没有A不能做C事
2)        没有B，光有A也不能做C事
所以
        只有A和B合起来才能做C事

吱吱的意见（不知是否表达正确了，吱吱要给意见）
1)        A的作用是可以作D事
2)        B的作用是可以作E事
所以
只有A和B合起来才能做C事

如果我对吱吱的意见没有理解错的话，那么我觉得我的论证这样应该是已经充分了。你的意见？
如果我的理解没错的话，再谈谈你上面的意见
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
1，        你说的两方面合作才能有价值是对的，但是这样对艺术家来说，貌似只用创作出来个作品就完事儿了，怎么让lasting？然后你会说有critic呢，怕什么？那你说你的意思是不是还是critics给了作品lasitng value？既然是合作，既然是相辅相成的，艺术家的作用就没那么简单，要想lasting不是只要创作出来就完了，要他们自己使他们的作品更特别，更受人喜爱，更技艺精湛。 你说得对，没错，这是艺术家的作用。但是我需要证明艺术家的作用是什么吗？我只想证明他是不可缺少的。为什么不可缺少？因为没有他们就没有作品，就谈不上价值。我可没有说，他们随便捏个东西出来就有价值，嗯，是不是觉得有点诡辩？希望有大牛出来解释一下。你说了么？没有艺术家就谈不上给了什么价值，这个也太。。。诶我说不好我觉得要是这么简单就不用论了，这只是个前提，价值的问题还要仔细说说

2，就算是我对lasting value和你理解不一致，也不影响我说那一堆B2里的话。关于评论家的作用。你说是作出评价，使得流传。那你自己的例子，凡高那个年代professional critic（你还用professional来强调评论家评论不出来，sigh）不就没做出来评价么？那为虾米后来的就又评价出来了？这不是让人疑问么？万一后人也没看出来价值呢（其实也无所谓，那就没价值呗嘿嘿）？ 这正是体现了评论家的作用，翻手为云，覆手为雨。没有他们就不行，有了他们才能流传，当然，你说得对，我的转折有点生硬，让人生疑，加句解释才好，我改所以critic让作品lasting 让一代一代流传关键在于他们有敏锐的视角，比常人更厉害的洞察力 我根本就不care评论家凭借什么来让作品流传，我只要证明没有他们，作品流传不了，自然也就没有lasting value就可以了，即便评论是个主观的事儿，在一个时代会受到限制，但是随着认识的发展，他们还是能捕捉到被遗忘的精华。这些不影响你定义的lasing value

boyjimUID: 125249

逻辑好复杂啊~~~

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

to 吱吱，很感谢你的大力支持，看来饭饭是怎么也逃不了了。。。那当然，有很少possibility暑假去深圳，只要去了必然去广州找你
下面我从整体总结一下我们的意见，看看我的理解有没有问题先

论点：只有A和B合起来才可以做C事
我的意见：
因为
1) 没有A不能做C事这叫联合么？C事儿本来就是在作品已经存在的情况下才会发生，这是个前提，不用你去证明，既然是联合，就要说两面的作用，而A的作用难道就是为了让C的主体产生？A有更重要的作用
2) 没有B，光有A也不能做C事这个我agree
所以
只有A和B合起来才能做C事

吱吱的意见（不知是否表达正确了，吱吱要给意见）
1) A的作用是可以作D事我没说那么多个概念吧，-_-!
2) B的作用是可以作E事我哭了。。。
所以
只有A和B合起来才能做C事你诋毁我的逻辑

如果我对吱吱的意见没有理解错的话，那么我觉得我的论证这样应该是已经充分了。你的意见？
如果我的理解没错的话，再谈谈你上面的意见
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
你说得对，没错，这是艺术家的作用。但是我需要证明艺术家的作用是什么吗？我只想证明他是不可缺少的。为什么不可缺少？因为没有他们就没有作品，就谈不上价值。我可没有说，他们随便捏个东西出来就有价值，嗯，是不是觉得有点诡辩？希望有大牛出来解释一下。哼，题目说谁给了价值？领会一下，当然是作品这个东西已经存在的情况下，到底是因为艺术家的能力啊还是因为评论家的传播使得lasting，作品是前提，不需要你证明没有艺术家就没有作品，废话呀，你要证明的是艺术家为虾米也对lasting有作用，难道作用就在于他们把作品造出来了？

我根本就不care评论家凭借什么来让作品流传，我只要证明没有他们，作品流传不了，自然也就没有lasting value就可以了那你怎么证明了为虾米没有他们凡高的就没流传，为虾米有了他们又流传了？只说了前面的没发现，所以没流传，后面的发现了，所以流传了？当然这说明了你的意思，只是怎么让人信服？弄的评论家好像很随便似的，说好就好说不好就不好，那评论家都是虾米水平？所以我说要说评论家比较有敏感性，比较专业，更灵敏的发觉精髓和价值，所以会流传

鬼谷子UID: 159645

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.
*************************************************************

Is it the artist, not the critic, who gives something of lasting value to society? 【照搬啊？你还不如直接问who gives something of lasting value to society ？然后再给出自己的想法。而且，我觉得这样把题目的内容加个问号就开头的方法实际上也是一种restate，可以考虑换成其他的形式】To answer the question, we should first make clear that what is so called "something of lasting value". I believe in the context, "something of lasting value" means some lasting【lastingly?】 valuable works of art. 【感觉没解释啊】 Under this precondition, I concede the artist plays a very important role in the process of giving society some lastingly valuable works of arts. Yet in my view, the artist could hardly effectively make his works best-known and affecting society a long time without the critic's help. The artist and the critic have to stand together to give society some lasting valuable works of art. 【平衡观点】

On one hand, the artist is indispensable to give【giving】 some lastingly valuable works of arts to society. Without the works created by the artist, we make nonsense of so called "giving society something of lasting value".【这个解释等于：没有A就会没有A】 Without the artist, where come from these works which will give society something of lasting value? 【同上，你既然已经默认了artist是创造works的人，那么这个解释又是什么意思呢？而且，为什么感觉你把works就等同于something of lasting value呢？这个是需要证明的啊】 The answer is easy to be given that it is nowhere. Without Rodin, there would be no The Thinker; Without Shakerspeare, there would be no The Hamlet. Without Vinci, there would be no The Mona Lisa. Therefore, the artist plays a vital role in giving society some works with lasting value. 【逻辑上有些混乱呢，基本上是什么都没证明】

On the other hand, the critic also plays a vital part in the lasting valuable works of arts. 【还没细看，只看篇幅就觉得不好，过于强调critic了，不是很平衡？】 The critic is the bridge between the artist and the common people, 【interpret ，explain等等，具体一点】who help the common people to appreciate the great works created by the artist and to recognize their value, thereby these works become widespread and come down from generation to generation, which means that the works become lastingly valuable. 【又是说出来而不是证出来的】What these great works would be like without the critic's benefit? 【这样不是不言自明的问题尽量不用】Without the critic's help, most valuable works, 【你看，你又是首先就假设了works是valuable的，这样岂不是不用再证明了？按你的论点，你应该论证是critic 让他们valuable的】which are used to express personal feeling and criticism of society by the artist, are too abstract and too difficult to be understood by the common people. Consequently, they are impossible to be best known. Moreover, they are impossible to be lastingly valuable. 【感觉你一直是把lasting value当成一个读者已知的概念来用，你需要做定义和解释的，这样的用法不好】For supporting examples we need look no further than Van Gogh two of whose painting now sale nearly fifty millions. 【这个钱数就证明有lasting value了吗？】In Van Gogh's career, 【what career？该是life】 he sold only one of his paintings and one of the important reasons was that few people could understand his painting, even the professional critic. We can easily imagine that if nothing else happened to change all these. All Van Gogh’s paintings will be buried in the history and we have no chance to apprieciate 【appreciate】these lastingly valuable paintings. Fortunately, the critics recognized the value of Van Gogh's painting after his death and led these paintings to the public, 【lead to？】ultimately, come down to us. 【最好具体一点，比如说是哪个critic做了怎样重要的评价，然后凡高的作品得到了重视等等】 From Van Gogh's experience, 【？从凡高的经验？】 we can draw a conclusion that the critic is important without whose help the lasting value of a work could hardly to be recognized.

In sum, from what has been discussed above, we may finally draw the conclusion that without the artist, "giving society something of lasting value" is nonsense, and without the critic, a work of art could hardly to be lastingly valuable one. Only when they cooperate, that is to say, the artist creates great works and the critic helps the common people to appreciate these works, society would be benefit to get something of lasting value.
【首先就是lasting value没有很好解释的问题，然后论证过程中存在很多的问题，比如把需要证明的问题当作已知前提，又把一些概念混同，论述不在重点上等等。而且，从结构和你的观点上来看，是不是应该最后来一段合的内容，说两方面都需要，然后才能最好的达到gives society something of lasting value的目的。论证的过程需要加强！加油！】

龙非UID: 193190

to 吱吱，很感谢你的大力支持，看来饭饭是怎么也逃不了了。。。那当然，有很少possibility暑假去深圳，只要去了必然去广州找你
下面我从整体总结一下我们的意见，看看我的理解有没有问题先

论点：只有A和B合起来才可以做C事
我的意见：
因为
1) 没有A不能做C事这叫联合么？C事儿本来就是在作品已经存在的情况下才会发生，这是个前提，不用你去证明，既然是联合，就要说两面的作用，而A的作用难道就是为了让C产生？A有更重要的作用 C事指的是give society something of lasting value， 那么在艺术领域，怎样才能给社会这些东东呢？ 就是1)有这些东西的存在，2) 这些东西能够流传下去； 那么艺术家的作用就是创造艺术作品，评论家的作用就是让它流传下去。极端的说，即使艺术家创造了垃圾，如果大家都说他好他不就好了嘛。。。；如果艺术家创造了块宝，但是大家都说他是垃圾那它就是垃圾，流传不下去，也就不可能到了今天让我们社会一些价值。当然，这些都是极端地说。这样说，好像评论家最牛了，但也不能这样说，如果没有艺术家，就连垃圾都没有了，评论家也就不从评价了。
2) 没有B，光有A也不能做C事这个我agree
所以
只有A和B合起来才能做C事

吱吱的意见（不知是否表达正确了，吱吱要给意见）
1) A的作用是可以作D事我没说那么多个概念吧，-_-! D事指的是创造有价值的作品，跟C事“giving something of lasting value” 是不一样的
2) B的作用是可以作E事我哭了。。。 E事指的是比较专业，更灵敏的发觉精髓和价值
所以
只有A和B合起来才能做C事你诋毁我的逻辑 其实不然,你这样论证也是可以的，只是跳了一点，就是要增加“只有D事（创建有价值的作品）＋E事（专业、灵敏地发觉精髓和价值）才可以做C事（giving society something of lasting value），那么就推出了“A和B和起来才能作C事了”

如果我对吱吱的意见没有理解错的话，那么我觉得我的论证这样应该是已经充分了。你的意见？
如果我的理解没错的话，再谈谈你上面的意见
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
你说得对，没错，这是艺术家的作用。但是我需要证明艺术家的作用是什么吗？我只想证明他是不可缺少的。为什么不可缺少？因为没有他们就没有作品，就谈不上价值。我可没有说，他们随便捏个东西出来就有价值，嗯，是不是觉得有点诡辩？希望有大牛出来解释一下。哼，题目说谁给了价值？领会一下，当然是作品这个东西已经存在的情况下，到底是因为艺术家的能力啊还是因为评论家的传播使得lasting，作品是前提，不需要你证明没有艺术家就没有作品，废话呀 你这样理解也是可以的，就是把作品已经存在这个作为一个前提，但是立论就不是这样了，立论应该像你说的“你让作品具有了lasting value”，这跟“谁给社会有lasting value的东东”还不是完全一样，你要证明的是艺术家为虾米也对lasting有作用，难道作用就在于他们把作品造出来了？

我根本就不care评论家凭借什么来让作品流传，我只要证明没有他们，作品流传不了，自然也就没有lasting value就可以了那你怎么证明了为虾米没有他们凡高的就没流传，为虾米有了他们又流传了？只说了前面的没发现，所以没流传，后面的发现了，所以流传了？当然这说明了你的意思，只是怎么让人信服？弄的评论家好像很随便似的，说好就好说不好就不好，那评论家都是虾米水平？ 这个是我的不好，我上一回复已经说了，转折得太快，跟六月天似的，我改。所以我说要说评论家比较有敏感性，比较专业，更灵敏的发觉精髓和价值，所以会流传 这个保留一下，极端得说，即使评论家都是笨蛋，但是大家都说它好，它也会流传，这也是极端的说
在跟你的讨论中，我的思路清晰起来了，其实我们的不同在于我的立论是艺术家和评论家是给社会价值的必要条件，所以我要证明没有他们其中的一个都不行；而吱吱的立论是艺术家和评论家是给社会价值的充分条件，所以要证明他们为什么可以给价值，当然就要证明艺术家有多牛，评论家又有多牛。吱吱觉得我的总结对了没有呢？如果我改一下提纲成为：
论点：
只有艺术家和评论家合起来才可以给社会价值
B1：没有艺术家不行，没有艺术家就没有作品，更谈不上给社会价值
B2：没有评论家，光有艺术家也不行，评论家使得艺术家的作品可以流传下去，从而具有了永久的价值
B3：当然，艺术家也不是随便给个作品就可以，而评论家也必须具有专业的知识去发现真正的价值。

写完又想了一下，我原来的论点不是很好地表达了我认为他们是必要条件的意思，也要改。。。

boyjimUID: 125249

最初由 鬼谷子 发布
[B]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,..

以下省略...... [/B]

读中文我都读不出什么逻辑关系~~~更不要说英语的逻辑关系~~~更加更加不用说写了....