的

davidjackyUID: 135962

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

[ Last edited by davidjacky on 2005-6-23 at 03:13 ]

fhxyweiUID: 157384

143. "Artists should pay little attention to their critics.* Criticism tends to undermine and constrain the artist's creativity."
. 艺术家不必太在乎他们的批评者。批评总是在破坏和压制艺术家的创造力。

提纲：1，艺术家不能仅仅只迎合少数批评家的口味
         2，大多数批评家本身不懂创作，他们非建设性的意见只会给艺术家的创作添乱。
         3，但是，艺术家应当重视一些客观意见



It is true that criticism will smother artists' creativity if their noses are led thoroughly by those critics. However, I cannot concur with speaker about that view that artists should pay little attention to their critics, for some objective and just criticism can do benefit to their creativity, more important, to our society.

On the one hand, if an artist trusted and followed some critics' ideas too much so that he regards their comments as the standards of his works of art, it would equal to adding a shackle to his infinite creativity. After all, critics cannot represent the masses' senses and tastes, so they are rarely able to establish just and objective standards by which works of art can be judged. Take the Chinese famous novelist JinYong for instance, many critics berate his swordman novels as inferior and vulgar ones which cannot be called as orthodox literature. But the fact is that his novels had won the largest popularity among we Chinese people, compared with any other kind of literature. Had not JinYong stuck to his own writing principle of catering to the majority not to the few critics, we shouldn't have had the opportunity to appreciate those wonderful and exciting novels which are still prevalent nowadays. Anyhow, art doesn't only serve a few elitists such as those critics but also the masses in our society.

Furthermore, most of critics themselves know little about how to create the works of arts, just like that we can eat and taste eggs but can never lay a single one by ourselves, so they seldom give some constructive advices to the artists in their creative activities, which can literally help to improve artists' creativity. As a matter of fact, artists' inspirations spring from their own experiences, intelligence and even some inborn talents rather than others' criticism. Rather, their noisy criticism always detracts their attention from creating excellent works.

On the other hand, it is necessary for artists to pay some attention to the feedback of objective and beneficial criticism, by which they can know better about the positive and negative influences of his works or art. Those objective feedbacks can help artists to enhance the positive influences of their future works and eliminate the side-effects. Especially for those film producers, critics' ideas may not only help them to identify the value and status of their films but also remind them to eliminate some negative effects such as the propaganda of violence, obscenity and so on. After all, an artist is not an isolated creature who just want to realize his or her creativity without considering others but the one who also should take the social responsibilities.

In conclusion, as an artist, a wise attitude to critics is to call a balance that he should not be controlled by critics' ideas and lose himself while open an eye to the objective and beneficial ones.

sophywUID: 203712

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2

smilehaha说我走题了,还请斑竹提意见啊,

我一定每天都来回贴 ,这么好的机会,不能冷落明明的一番好意啊 :lol

还有,问一句,没有让步行吗>

sophywUID: 203712

好冷情呀, 弱弱的问一句,今天登记过,以后每天还要过来登记吗? 因为我没天都会写一篇的 :)

sophywUID: 203712

既然不够三个,我在来发一个,今天刚刚写的,本来想明天发的, 不过来这里捧捧人气啊,明明斑竹要不就把我发的这篇当成明天的承诺把, ;P

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

abigredUID: 154473

我的第一篇argument，希望版主提建议
argument160题目：As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In cases, these compounds almoost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.
作文:
In this argument, the arguer concludes the compounds, which can prevent PEP from breaking, should be extended to students to help them have better performance by having better memory and concentration. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites tests that those compounds are effective in restoring lost memory in rats. A careful examination will reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
To begin with, the arguer bases on the assumption that the compounds used in rats can also be used on human beings. Yet the arguer fails to give any evidence on this crucial assumption. It is equally impossible that the impressive effect in rats wouldn’t suffice to ensure similar effect in human, while some factors, such as the difference in neurone, gene structure, that might have great influence on how the compounds react. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities , the arguer’s conclusion might lead to false analogy, let alone the recommendation of extended use on students.  
Even if, the compounds can be effective in prevent PEP from breaking when people grow older, it is not necessarily that the compounds can have the same effect on students, who are on their youthful age. Scant evidences show me the compounds are useful to both the old and the young. Without considering that the old might have poor vulnerability to health problem, or less brainwork, or other factors that might contribute to the problem of PEP breaking, the arguer unfairly enlarges the function of the compounds, which renders it unconvincing as it stands.
Even if I were to concede that the compounds can be extended to students, which help prevent PEP from preventing in order to improve memory, the arguer fails to establish a correletion between the compounds and better concentration. For there are no evidence showing that the compounds have anything to do with concentrating, the arguer’s conclusion is weaken by such rough assumption.
Last but not least, the arguer’s recommendation, that the compounds can eventually help students perform better in school, is based on the assumption that better memory and concentration are the only factors be responsible for good performance. However, the arguer ingores a myriad of revelant factors that might account for good performance, such as creativity, clear goals, hard-work etc. without comprehensive understanding how to achieve good performance, I have enough reason to doubt the conclusion of arguer.
In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is logically flawed in many respects. Rather than rely on the questionable assumption, the arguer should provide more evidence that the compounds have the same effort on students as that on rats. To strenghten the argument, the arguer might have to show me the compounds also have influence on better concentration. I would also need to know the correlation between good performance in school and better memory or concentration.

abigredUID: 154473

链接：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D3

谢谢版主