Issue144 G-89互助社 8月12日作业 以前写的，谢谢大家了

iamfeatherUID：202850

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------
The speaker asserts that it is the artist rather than the critic who gives society something of lasting value. As far as I concerned, the artist serves much to the society, while the merits of the critic should not be overlooked, as discussed below.

In the first place, the works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc. leaves much legacy to arts of a certain history, hereby they will be valued for a long time. Take Las Miserable for example. It was written by Victor Huge, a famous writer. The novel characterizes a little girl’s misfortune in her age, and when we read the stories we may feel the character of that era, which we can not experience in our time. We can also experience a certain time only by the works of that era, even if we can not get back to the circumstance. The work of the time can be easily linked with the time, rich or poor, turbulent or peaceful. In other words, the works of art have value in reflecting the history leading to the enduring worthy of them.

In the second place, the critic of some art may be determined by the critics of different condition, hence they may be not as subjective as we expected. After all, a controversial result may be confusing and maybe not be remembered for a long time. It is the human nature that we want a defined answer rather than a confused one, even if it maybe accomplished all the time. Besides,  the critic in certain era maybe not easily accepted by the people in another time. For example, when Van Gogh was in his era, he had sold no more than one painting, nevertheless, in modern times his work worth at least-if not more than 5,000,000 dollars. In short, the critic is so subjective, therefore, it may have not a long value.

It should be admitted that the critic to some extent accelerate the popular of the works of art. Maybe the pity is not there is lots of poor critic of a work, but there is no one to comment the work. Consider the Monaliza of Davinci, and there is a lot of comment of the reason for the smile, someone think that she is smile for the sake of the expectation of the future, someone think it is only the self-portrait of Davinci himself, and then thanks to the controversy, we become realize the value of so compelling as such a smile. Consequently, without the critic some great works may be not even acknowledged by the public, no mention the lasting value.

To sum up, from what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that the critic serves to the public of the work value, while the works of art do have a more lasting value. Therefore, the real work of art, with the assistant of critic, can be valued for a lasting time.