新鲜的issue144，有拍必有回！

mummybabyUID: 197156

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:
We are still moved by the fortitude of Forrest Gun -- the chief character in the film "Forest Gun" and affected by the revolutionary impact in Stravinsky score, while how many of us can remember or even have a look at any details of comments about these great works yet? I strongly embrace the speaker's assertion that artists offer us timeless treasure. My discussion below will stem from the two fundamental aspects: "value" and "timeless".

For one thing, the production acknowledged with lasting value should be the one from which public can benefit far more and than most of others. And it is the artwork not the opinion of a critic (without judging it is right or not first), to realize this function. Such as Mozart's musical works, which are considered universal are today still showed to public in opera house, sold in CD shop, and written on textbook for students in music school. His works lay considerable influence on the music art in contemporary era and even much longer in future. And, even if we can find much comments of the critics about the Mozart's works, it will be of only useful to so few scholars or bibliographers who need these information for their particular research, but no sense to most of us, for Mozart's work itself have shifted our attentions away from the critic's evaluation which is purely a reflection of personal taste to us. As a consequence, this disobeys the principle of the lasting value which should benefit public as we have talked about, and make critics’ researches much less significant to public than the artworks by general values.

In another aspect, there are no criteria living for all time. This fact decides critic’s assertions can not always be feasible with time passing, and is another chief reason why the critic can not supply the "lasting" value. On the contrary, the achievements in art represent not only the bright idea of the artist, a reflection of the culture in the certain era, but also the effort realizing our craving to possess the beauty of the world. Take painting for example. Today we still admire the perfection of some paintings accomplished hundreds of years ago, no matter they once adapt to the form of Cubism or the Social Realism or Abstract Expressionism, taking no care about even disparate evaluations by famous critics in different ages. In another way, however, I do not mean the critic's work is negligible, it just take the place as a standard which also considerably important more than a production. In short, we can different role the artist and critic act determine their essence that the timeless one is not the latter but the former.

In sum, though both artist and character have greatly contributed to the culture sphere, we should admit the fact that the timeless value attributes to artists, and the critics more likely operate as evaluating the value and establishing the criteria.

huijuan1210UID: 200139

No.1 新鲜的issue144，有拍必有回！
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:
We are still moved by the fortitude of Forrest Gun -- the chief character in the film "Forest Gun" and affected by the revolutionary impact in Stravinsky score, while how many of us can remember or even have a look at any details of comments about these great works yet? I strongly embrace the speaker's assertion that artists offer us timeless treasure. My discussion below will stem from the two fundamental aspects: "value" and "timeless".(i like your starting)

For one thing, the production acknowledged with lasting value should be the one from which public can benefit far more and than most of others. (这句号难懂）And it is the artwork not the opinion of a critic (without judging it is right or not first), to realize this function. Such as Mozart's musical works, which are considered universal are today still showed （are showing)to public in opera house, sold (selling)  in CD shop, and written (being studied//compulsory chapter in textbook) on textbook for students in music school. His works lay considerable influence on the music art in contemporary era and even(most probably) much longer in future(later future). And, even if we can find much (many) comments of the critics about the Mozart's works, it will be of only useful to so (so... that?where is your that? then you better use other abjectives)few scholars or bibliographers who need these information for their particular(maybe specific?) research, but no sense( it might show little meaning） to most of us, for Mozart's work itself have shifted our attentions away from the critic's evaluation which is purely a reflection of personal taste to us. As a consequence, this disobeys the principle of the lasting value which should benefit public as we have talked about, and make critics’ researches much less significant to public than the artworks by general values.

In another aspect, （on the other hand) there are no criteria living for all time. (??) This fact decides critic’s assertions can not always be feasible with time passing, and is another chief reason why the critic can not supply the "lasting" value. On the contrary, the achievements in art represent not only the bright idea of the artist, a reflection of the culture in the certain era, but also the effort realizing our craving to possess the beauty of the world. Take painting for example. Today we still admire the perfection of some paintings accomplished hundreds of years ago, no matter they once adapt to the form of Cubism or the Social Realism or Abstract Expressionism, taking no care about even disparate evaluations by famous critics in different ages. In another way, however, I do not mean the critic's work is negligible, it just take the place as a standard which also considerably important more than a production. In short, we can different role the artist and critic act determine their essence that the timeless one is not the latter but the former.


我只细看了第一段， 觉得文字还不够好，但更主要的还是你的文章条理不够清晰， 你可以搜搜大坛子里的，好多写得很好的，我自己这一篇也是很烂的。
可能要大改。

runnerioUID: 152251

Issue 144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:
We are still moved by the fortitude of Forrest Gun（应该是Gump） -- the chief character in the film "Forest Gun"(Gump) (想了想还是觉得不解释好一些，搞的句子很散，这个角色应该是家喻户晓吧)and affected by the revolutionary impact in Stravinsky score, while how many of us can remember or even have a look at any details of comments about these great works yet? I strongly embrace the speaker's assertion that artists offer us timeless treasure.（这里我觉得至少应该提一下不是critic，statement明确指出了要对比） My discussion below will stem from the two fundamental aspects: "value" and "timeless".

For one thing, the production acknowledged with lasting value should be the one from which public can benefit far more and than most of others（这个句子有问题，去掉and）. And （and 这个连词有它固定的使用方式，它是不可以直接这样引导一个句子的，除非前面是个逗号或分号）it is the artwork not the opinion of a critic（你看换成 rather than critic’s opinion 是否要好一些，要是你那种表达的话，not 前要加逗号）(without judging it is right or not first), to（不好，换成that, 表强调） realize this function. Such as Mozart's musical works, which are considered universal are today still showed to public in opera house（两个谓语 :confused: ）, sold in CD shop, and written on textbook for students in music school. His works lay considerable influence on the music art in contemporary era and even much longer in future. And,（and 不可以这样用） even if we can find much comments of the critics about the Mozart's works, it will be of only useful to so few scholars or bibliographers who need these information for their particular research, but no sense to most of us, （太绝对化了，犯的是ARGUMENT型的错误，这在ISSUE中就相当于空喊口号，不convincing的，而且后面给的理由也不让人信服）for Mozart's work itself have shifted our attentions away from the critic's evaluation which is purely a reflection of personal taste to us. As a consequence, this disobeys the principle of the lasting value which should benefit public as we have talked about, and make critics’ researches much less significant to public than the artworks by general values.

我觉得你这样全盘否定critic是很难写的，论据很难找。这一段的论证很难让人信服，因为critic发现并传播了杰出艺术作品的价值，帮助表达了大众对艺术的理解与期待。美玉不为人识，则与顽石无异。你又怎么证明critic的评判就没有lasting value 呢？

In another aspect, there are no criteria living for all time. This fact decides critic’s assertions can not always be feasible with time passing, and is another chief reason why the critic can not supply the "lasting" value. On the contrary, the achievements in art represent not only the bright idea of the artist, a reflection of the culture in the certain era, but also the effort realizing our craving to possess the beauty of the world. Take painting for example. Today we still admire the perfection of some paintings accomplished hundreds of years ago, no matter they once adapt to the form of Cubism or the Social Realism or Abstract Expressionism, taking no care about even disparate evaluations by famous critics in different ages. In another way, however, I do not mean the critic's work is negligible, it just take the place as a standard which also considerably important more than a production. In short, we can（少了个表推断的动词，project or something） different role(s) the artist(s) and critic(s) act(换成play 更地道) determine their（换成the ） essence that the timeless one is not the latter but the former.
仅仅因为标准不断的变，critic就没有lasting value吗？人们真的忽略了评论家吗？正是因为评论家不同时代的人才有了对艺术独特的理解。我觉得至少你的论证无法让我信服。 :o

In sum, though both artist and character （？？）have greatly contributed to the culture sphere, we should admit the fact that the timeless value attributes to artists, and the critics more likely operate as evaluating the value and establishing the criteria.（这个概念是不是早一点提出来好一些，在文末提出来又没有发展，就是一个新的argument了）

语言还是很好，注意连词及标点符号的正确使用。 :D
个人建议还是再对论题仔细思考一下，你的论证偏于片面。
加油！ :p