Issue144 艺术家 评论家 艺术永恒价值

daidai_4UID: 2194147

TOPIC: ISSUE 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.

[提纲：　
第一段：artists other than critics “give” things of lasting value第一段我正在探索别的风格，高人指点一下看行不行　
第二段：正视评论家们的作用　 necessary but not the most important
第三段：有时评论家们也是错的 结论　they can influence but not determine the lasting value of works
第四段：这个论题反映一种社会问题，趋附权威　　每个人都有评论的权力　例子：Mona Lisa Smile的value　就在于很多人从不同角度来评
总结：　。。。。 ]


Art, in my view, is a tool of communication among people by the means of color, shape, movement, tunes or literal words, instead of language. Just because of this special means, works of art may not always be understood by common population, or at least fully understood. And sometimes the value of a master cannot even realized until one day an insightful critic discovers it and introduces it to the public. In this sense??, some may argue that it is the critic who give the society  something of lasting value. Nevertheless, As far as the term "give" is concerned, I have the conviction that it is the art itself not the critique that is really of lasting value. Simply put, a critic is just like a judge in a sports meeting while the artists is the athlete. Who “gives” the excellent performance or breakthrough? The answer is apparent. In addition, not all the critiques are reliable and the overstating of critics otherwise reflects a social problem.

To begin with, to make the standard of whom to attribute those long lasting values things to, we must understand the effect of those critics in a proper way. Admittedly, critics are as indispensable as art itself in the society in that the critic often serves as a bridge between artists and audiences.  Through their interpretation and critiques, people, who didn’t study art professionally, can get a better understanding and enjoyment. They also take the responsibility as to distinguish the valuable works from the bad ones. However, no one is born of a critic. What the artists transfer to us is compassion, emotion, or just a sense of beauty, not the rigid words in critiques. Thus, critics are indisputable or necessary but not the most important.
What's more, critiques are not always credible or reliable due to their political, cultural, academic or religious background or basically the limitation of their experience. It is a common and inevitable problem that not all the artists are as luck as Shakespeare to be highly praised during his lifetime and beyond. Some works are not recognized until several years or even tens of years after the artist's death, such as the novel Gone with the wind, Van Gogh's works?, and one of the greatest Chinese literature works The Story of The Stone??. From this point of view, I hold that critics can influence but not determine the lasting value of works.

In addition, there is another argument worth of pointing out. As is reflected in the overrating of critics, there is a widely existent problem that there are always some people who are prone to follow others especially those with high prestige or authority. Absolutely following the critiques, in my view, would undermine or decrease the understanding of the works' spirit or essence. A critic, as a great artist said, is a legless man who teaches running. Concerning this "running", critics are legless, so are the audience. Thus every individual has the equal right as to evaluate the works and enjoy them in their own perspective. Mona Lisa Smile, for instance, is favored and popular in part for the legendary smile of mysteriousness, upon which different people have different opinions. None of the critics can set a standard to the appreciation, because the works can make people get identified with itself. That’s where the long lasting value lies.

Finally, as an old saying goes, gold will always be discovered or put in the right place. The need for critics in the society is indisputable while they can neither heighten nor degrade the real value of a works. We should see the critiques in the right way and take use of them to a proper extent. The lasting value of masterpieces lies in themselves which can be only accessed by our feelings.

songokerUID: 2121767

保存了,晚点给你发回来..不过贴子不要沉了,沉了找不到了。

aftergrassUID: 202777

Art, in my view, is a tool of communication among people by the means of color, shape, movement, tunes or literal words, instead of language. Just because of this special means, works of art may not always be understood by common population, or at least fully understood. And sometimes the value of a master cannot even realized until one day an insightful critic discovers it and introduces it to the public. In this sense??, some may argue that it is the critic who give the society  something of lasting value. Nevertheless, As far as the term "give" is concerned, I have the conviction that it is the art itself not the critique that is really of lasting value. Simply put, a critic is just like a judge in a sports meeting while the artists is the athlete. Who “gives” the excellent performance or breakthrough? The answer is apparent. In addition, not all the critiques are reliable and the overstating of critics otherwise reflects a social problem.
开头一段意思表达得不错，语言也可以，就是觉得说的过多了，个人认为第一段说明观点就可以了。
To begin with, to make the standard of whom to attribute those long lasting values things to, we must understand the effect of those critics in a proper way. Admittedly, critics are as indispensable as art itself in the society in that the critic often serves as a bridge between artists and audiences.  Through their interpretation and critiques, people, who didn’t study art professionally, can get a better understanding and enjoyment. They also take the responsibility as to distinguish the valuable works from the bad ones. However, no one is born of a critic. What the artists transfer to us is compassion, emotion, or just a sense of beauty, not the rigid words in critiques. Thus, critics are indisputable or necessary but not the most important.
What's more, critiques are not always credible or reliable due to their political, cultural, academic or religious background or basically the limitation of their experience. （这句分析的真好）It is a common and inevitable problem that not all the artists are as luck (lucky) as Shakespeare to be highly praised during his lifetime and beyond. Some works are not recognized until several years or even tens of years after the artist's death, such as the novel Gone with the wind, Van Gogh's works?, and one of the greatest Chinese literature works The Story of The Stone??. From this point of view, I hold that critics can influence but not determine the lasting value of works.

In addition, there is another argument worth of pointing out. As is reflected in the overrating of critics, there is a widely existent problem that there are always some people who are prone to follow others especially those with high prestige or authority. Absolutely following the critiques, in my view, would undermine or decrease the understanding of the works' spirit or essence. A critic, as a great artist said, is a legless man who teaches running. Concerning this "running", critics are legless, so are the audience. Thus every individual has the equal right as to evaluate the works and enjoy them in their own perspective. Mona Lisa Smile, for instance, is favored and popular in part for the legendary smile of mysteriousness, upon which different people have different opinions. None of the critics can set a standard to the appreciation, because the works can make people get identified with itself. That’s where the long lasting value lies.

Finally, as an old saying goes, gold will always be discovered or put in the right place. The need for critics in the society is indisputable while they can neither heighten nor degrade the real value of a works. We should see the critiques in the right way and take use of them to a proper extent. The lasting value of masterpieces lies in themselves which can be only accessed by our feelings.
写得很不错哦，不过感觉都是从critics的角度出发的，如果能在中间段中变换一下，也许观点感觉会更清楚。
我也写了这篇，欢迎指点
Whether it is the artist, or the critic, who gives society lasting value, is not an easy question to answer. For the term "lasting value" is an abstract concept, people may have different views on this issue. As far as I concerned, the lasting value may refer to something that bring the enjoyment and inspiration to the mankind. Under this definition, I generally agree that it is the artist, rather than the critic, gives society lasting value, though the critic also made unforgettable distribution.

It is true that it is the critic who helps us understand and appreciate the art better. Though almost every works of art is originated from human lives, not all the people could understand them without certain education or reference materials. In this way, people need someone with special knowledge on the art field to guard them to enter the gate of arts. No one would deny the fact that those so called modern arts are becoming harder and harder to understand for the public, so the work of critics is more necessary than ever before.

However, the artists are the real creators of the art works, without their great gifts and hard- works, the critics would have no material to comment on, and the public, would have no chance to appreciate the beauty of arts. We could remember the Mona Lisa Smile so clearly, but could not figure out how many critiques have made on this master piece and what are they exactly about. And it is through the Emily Dickinson’s poems themselves, rather than any piece of those comments, we feel the great rhyme of the language. Thus, it is the artists, rather than the critics, who give people the ever-lasting memories and enjoyments.

Moreover, there are many diversions, even some controversies, in the critiques themselves. Facing the same piece of works, different people may have different opinions, and there is no exception among the critics. Under this circumstance, the reader or the auditor may get more confused than ever. Besides, the critic’s ability of perception may be limited by the time and the social environment she lives in, just like ordinary people, no matter how specialized she is. So there is no wonder about the value of Vincent Van Gogh’s works changed a lot through the time. And it is very often that those great artists’ thought may surpass their time so greatly that the critics in their time could not appreciate properly. Therefore, it is risky to change the value of certain works on the mere basis of those critiques.

To sum up, though the critic helps people to understand the work of art greatly, it is the artist who offers people the lasting materials to appreciate, and it is also the artist who gives the critics the question to ponder and comment on. Without the works of the artists, the so called value could hardly be made.

daidai_4UID: 2194147

Whether it is the artist, or the critic, who gives society lasting value, is not an easy question to answer. For the term "lasting value" is an abstract concept, people may have different views on this issue. As far as I concerned, the lasting value works of lasting values 否则它不会bring… may refer to something that bring the enjoyment and inspiration to the mankind. Under this definition, I generally agree that it is the artist, rather than the critic, who gives society lasting value, though the critic also made unforgettable distribution contribution.

It is true that it is the critic who helps us understand and appreciate the art better. Though almost every works of art is originated from human lives, not all the people could understand them without certain education or reference materials. In this way, people need someone with special knowledge on the art field to guard them to enter the gate of arts. No one would deny the fact that those so called modern arts are becoming harder and harder to understand for the public, so the work of critics is more necessary than ever before.

However, the artists are the real creators of the art works, without their great gifts and hard- works, the critics would have no material to comment on, and the public, would have no chance to appreciate the beauty of arts. We could remember the Mona Lisa Smile so clearly, but could not figure out how many critiques have made on this master piece and what are they exactly about. And it is through the Emily Dickinson’s poems themselves, rather than any piece of those comments, that 你喜欢用强调句　但是总出点毛病　建议再看看语法书练练这句型 we feel the great rhyme of the language. Thus, it is the artists, rather than the critics, who give people the ever-lasting memories and enjoyments.　感觉论证不要只说artists 应该重点放在the lasting value 上

Moreover, there are many diversions, even some controversies, in the critiques themselves. Facing the same piece of works, different people may have different opinions, and there is no exception among the critics. Under this circumstance, the reader or the auditor audience may get more confused than ever. Besides, the critic’s ability of perception may be limited by the time and the social environment she lives in, just like ordinary people, no matter how specialized she is. So there is no wonder about aboutthat the value of Vincent Van Gogh’s works changed a lot through the time总觉得through the time 怪怪的　不如说over the time. And it is very often that those great artists’ thought may surpass their time so greatly that the critics in their time could not appreciate properly. Therefore, it is risky to change the value of certain works on the mere basis of those critiques.

To sum up, though the critic helps people to understand the work of art greatly, it is the artist who offers people the lasting materials to appreciate, and it is also the artist who gives the critics the question to ponder and comment on. Without the works of the artists, the so called value could hardly be made.

思路挺清晰的　不过感觉有些语言不是很顺畅或说地道　多写几篇就好了　　加油哦
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
我的，结构前半部分稍微改了下　思路又清晰了一些　诚请各位“屈尊”在牛顿脚下的人帮我看
看行不行　
还有关于艺术评论苦于没例子　希望能提点意见


TOPIC: ISSUE 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.　
提纲：　
第一段：直指观点
第二段：是艺术家们给了社会那些。。。东西
第三段：有时评论家们也是错的 结论　they can influence but not determine the la
sting value of works
第四段：这个论题反映一种社会问题，趋附权威　　每个人都有评论的权力　例子：Mona
Lisa Smile的value　就在于很多人从不同角度来评
总结：　。。。。

I strongly agree with the speaker on that, while critics are indispensable or necessary, it is the artist who really leaves the society with lasting value things. On the other hand, the critiques are not always reliable and even misleading and works of real lasting value can bear the time test and would be ultimately realized by the populace.

Art, in my view, is a tool of communication among people by the means of color, shape, movement, tunes or literal words, instead of language. Thus works of art may not always be understood, or at least fully understood, by populace. Some works of art cannot even realized until one day an insightful critic discovers it and introduces it to the public. In this case, some may argue that it is the critic who give the society  something of lasting value. Nevertheless, As far as the term "give" is concerned, I have the conviction that it is the art itself not the critique that is really of lasting value. Simply put, a critic is just like a judge in a sports meeting while the artists is the athlete. Who “gives” the excellent performance or breakthrough? The answer is apparently the athlete or the artist. A critic only serves as a bridge between artists and audiences, whereas the art itself can always arouse inspiration, passion, sensuous enjoyment and even empathy where the lasting value lies.

On the other hand, critiques are not always credible or reliable due to their political, cultural, academic or religious background or basically the limitation of their experience. It is a common and inevitable problem that not all the artists are as luck as Shakespeare to be highly praised during his lifetime and beyond. Some works are not recognized until several years or even tens of years after the artist's death, such as the novel Gone with the wind, Van Gogh's works, and one of the greatest Chinese literature works The Story of The Stone. From this point of view, I hold that critics can influence but not determine the lasting value of works.

In addition, there is another argument worth of pointing out. As is reflected in the overrating of critics, there is a widely existent problem that there are always some people who are prone to follow others especially those with high prestige or authority. Absolutely following the critiques, in my view, would undermine or decrease the understanding of the works' spirit or essence. A critic, as a great artist said, is a legless man who teaches running. Concerning this "running", critics are legless, so are the audience. Thus every individual has the equal right as to evaluate the works and enjoy them in their own perspective. Mona Lisa Smile, for instance, is favored and popular in part for the legendary smile of mysteriousness, upon which different people have different opinions. None of the critics can set a standard to the appreciation, because the works can make people get identified with itself. That’s where the long lasting value lies.

Finally, as an old saying goes, gold will always be discovered or put in the right place. The need for critics in the society is indisputable while they can neither heighten nor degrade the real value of a works. We should see the critiques in the right way and take use of them to a proper extent. The lasting value of masterpieces lies in themselves which can be only accessed by our feelings.

[ 本帖最后由 daidai_4 于 2006-3-14 08:47 编辑 ]

whitemummyUID: 2166380

I strongly agree with the speaker on that, while critics are indispensable or necessary, it is the artist who really leaves the society with lasting value things. （On the other hand，转换得有点突然，似乎这里并不适合用这个连接词）, the critiques are not always reliable and （even misleading，这里用错了，不是并列结构） and works of real lasting value can bear the time test and would be ultimately realized by the populace.(总体上帮你改一下吧，第一段没有写好：I strongly agree with the speaker that it is the artist rather than critic who leaves the society those things of lasting value, which could bear the time test and would be ultimately recognized by the public. Although the critics are also indispensable or necessary, they are not always reliable and, in certain cases, they are even misleading.)不好意思，结构好难调整，本来想顺着你的思路改一下的，不过总觉得写不好，见笑了！不过按照我的调整，你后面的结构可能也要变了，考试的时候估计不可能花长时间想这些问题的~~

Art, in my view, is a tool of communication among people by the means of color, shape, movement, tunes or literal words, instead of language. Thus works of art may not always be understood, or at least fully understood, by populace. Some works of art cannot even （be）realized until one day an insightful critic discovers it and introduces it to the public. In this case, some may argue that it is the critic who (give->gives) the society something of lasting value. Nevertheless, As far as the term "give" is concerned, I have the conviction that it is the art itself not the critique that (is really of lasting value???有点问题->I have the conviction that the lasting value is possessed by the art itself rather than given by the critic??.). Simply put, a critic is just like a judge in a sports meeting while the artist is the athlete. Who “gives” the excellent performance or breakthrough? The answer is apparently the athlete or the artist. A critic only serves as a bridge between artists and audiences, whereas the art itself can always arouse inspiration, passion, sensuous enjoyment and even empathy where the lasting value lies.

(On the other hand??因为前面也一直是在淡化评论者的作用，这里进一步淡化，所以我总觉得这里应该是递进而不是转折，用这个词是否合理呢？), critiques are not always credible or reliable due to their political, cultural, academic or religious background or basically the limitation of their experience. It is a common and inevitable problem that not all （the去掉） artists are as （luck->lucky）as Shakespeare (to去掉) be highly praised during his lifetime and beyond. Some works are not recognized until several years or even tens of years after the artist's death, such as the novel Gone with the wind, Van Gogh's works, and one of the greatest Chinese literature works The Story of The Stone（红楼梦？？这个小说在当时一定轰动一时了，只是作者的处境比较凄惨而已，所以不合适用在这里！）. From this point of view, I (hold->insist) that critics can influence but not determine the lasting value of works.

In addition, there is another argument (worth of pointing out???). As (is->be) reflected in the overrating of critics, there is a widely existent problem that there are always some people who are prone to follow others especially those with high prestige or authority. Absolutely following the critiques, in my view, would undermine or decrease the understanding of the works' spirit or essence. A critic, as a great artist said, is a legless man who teaches running. Concerning this "running", critics are legless, so are the audience. Thus every individual has the equal right as to evaluate the works and enjoy them in their own perspective. Mona Lisa Smile, for instance, is favored and popular in part for the legendary smile of mysteriousness, upon which different people have different opinions. None of the critics can set a standard to the appreciation, because the works can make people get identified with itself. That’s where the long lasting value lies.(怎么感觉这一段有点跑题阿？你斟酌一下，我不是太确定！)

Finally, as an old saying goes, gold will always be discovered or put in the right place. The need for critics in the society is indisputable while they can neither heighten nor degrade the real value of a works. We should see the critiques in the right way and take use of them to a proper extent. The lasting value of masterpieces lies in themselves which can be only accessed by our feelings.（焦点还是放在拼论者身上了，不过能写成这样也真的不错了！加油吧~~）

ccrhd02UID: 2218589

hyk900211UID: 2668590

最后一篇文章的具体内容，的确不错但是有一下的问题
  作者的观点分两个，第一是艺术家本身创造了艺术的LASTING VALUE，其二，暗示艺术评论家在创造艺术的LASTING VALUE过程中没有太大的作用。既然考生同意作者的观点，那么就应该放出具体的内容来描述ISSUE 的第一个观点，不然，就成了针对艺术评论家的定义阐释辨证地看开艺术家的文章了。就像本文一样，如果真要这样写，觉得可以改改作者的观点，来自然合理的将文章的重点放在艺术评论家上。 否则 有走题的嫌疑。

萝卜须根多UID: 3008387

7# hyk900211
不过我看北美范文里关于这一篇，是正文第一段说评论家表面上的三个作用，然后分三段一一反驳，所以，感觉这样安排还是没问题的，只要语音注意下就好了

溴气雪花膏UID: 2937218

8# 萝卜须根多 我们都犯过这个错误，那就是楼主已经不需要我们的建议啦……看他的发帖时间……