0610G同主题写作第一期——Issue144

log0731UID: 2207584

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
1、艺术家创造出永恒的艺术价值，尽管有些伟大的作品没有得到当时评论界的承认。
2、表面上艺术家是唯一因素，但不然。批评家发现艺术品的价值。 批评家有敏锐的洞察力，能筛选出有真正价值的艺术品，从而节约人们的时间和精力。批评家的评论能够帮助人们更好的理解艺术的价值。
3、批评家对艺术品提供有价值的反馈，使得艺术家不断进步，创造出更好的作品。
4 总结，两者对社会的贡献都很大，应将他们结合起来。

Words: 603                                   time: 70mins
Does the artist give society something of lasting value rather than the critic? The speaker claims so, I tend to agree with the view insofar as that some great artists’ splendid works give society something of lasting value indeed, however, in some sense, it is the critic who help the artist create better works though giving suggestions to them. In my opinion, both artist and critic contribute much to the society.

Looking trough the history, there is no doubt that the artists create many great works which influence people at all times. From their works, we can learn much. For instance, from Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa”, we are potty about the mysterious smile; from Monet’s “Impression: Sunrise”, we can find describing the world by another way is wonderful; from Beethoven’s music, we can hear the bottom of his strong heart ; from the outstanding movie “The Lord of the Rings”, we are shocked by the gallant scenes. All these great works contribute much to the development of the human’s culture, and give human something of lasting value. Some of them were not accepted then, even disdained by the critic. For example, Van Gogh, two of whose still life paintings have recently broken all records in selling for $50 million, sold only one of his paintings in his entire career. But these works are proved to be some endless wealth for the later person.

Although from the surface, we can draw a conclusion that it is the artists who give much value to the society. But thinking deeply, we will find that without the art critic, in some sense art cannot embody its significance thoroughly. Critics can help us to understand and interpret art. A critic who is familiar with a particular artist and his works or his thoughts can have certain insights about the works but the layperson can not. Their professional evaluation can teach us how to enjoy the works, and at the same time, they can also lead us find better works so that we can save our time and attention. For example, in Chinese, almost everybody knows the famous book “Dream of the red chamber” which plays an important part in Chinese literature history. The book can achieve such great reputation not only for the author CaoXueqin but also a famous critic called ZhiYanzhai. It is him who commented the book from the head to the end to make later person to understand the book’s more clearly. Therefore, the critic can be a bridge between the works and the layperson. They lead us to find the true value in the works.

In addition, a critic can provide some creative feedback for artists. Although they can not create them by themselves, they understand them. They can analyze them from other directions, maybe more proper ways. By this way, there can always be better thoughts offered to the artists, and constructive criticism too. If the artists take them to heart, much better works will appear. For example, the famous musician Chopin wrote a new piece of work then showed it to his neighbor, an old woman who was blind but had good hearing. She evaluated the work and told him her thoughts. Chopin made better work by taking her advices. It is possible that the critic make mistakes on some works sometimes, but most parts of them can make valuable evaluation, which can impel the development of the art.

In sum, both the artist and the critic have positive effects on the creation of great works. By combining them, there could be more and more permanent art emerging in the world.
感受：看了模版和网上提纲写出来的。自己基础很差，遣词造句上有很大问题，老是用那几个词那几个句式，文章显得很枯燥，本来也看了很多句式，一写起来就用不出来。还老拼错词，请各位高手多指点一二。谢谢。

[ 本帖最后由 log0731 于 2006-7-12 15:07 编辑 ]

whyadddUID: 2207005

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "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.
WORDS: 518          TIME: 1:02:52          DATE: 2006-7-10
    提纲
观点：不同意标题看法，认为artists和critics同样重要。
1、艺术家创作的艺术作品有各种各样的价值；
2、批评家也对艺术品的持续价值做出了贡献；
3、承认有些滥竽充数的“挑剔的人”有时候并不懂艺术品。

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


From the title statement, the speaker elaborates the assertion that artists are able to provide the society more things of lasting value rather than critics. Some people may define "lasting value" as "works of art that is left to the following generations", so they will accept wholeheartedly with the arguer. But their definition is somewhat partial, because they neglect what has caused works of art to gain its value and remain valuable even centuries later. The reasons will include both the brilliant character of the art works and the comments made by critics. So in my opinion, I will argue that both artists and critics are playing important roles in giving art works lasting value.

On the one hand, it is the reason of the great works of art itself, which is developed by artists, has considerable values in many aspects, such as aesthetics, history, recreation, etc. We all know the famous novelist, Hemingway, who wrote a great many novels during World War Two, including “A Farewell to Arms”, “The Old Man and the Sea”, etc.; and his novels presented sarcastic phenomena about politics and military in that special time, which is a precious property in historical values. When sitting in front of the television watching former films such as “Modern Times”, “The Gold Rush”, “City Lights” by Chaplin, we cannot help complaining at the side effect of the Industrial Revolution; albeit the films are produced without voices, we can acquire enough information of history, together with the sidesplitting skills of the films. There are also lots of examples concerning music, paintings, sculptures and so forth, which have appreciable values to the whole society, but I have little time to mention them.

On the other hand, critics, whose jobs are evaluating works of art, should not be neglected for their offstage contribution to the valuable artifacts. Firstly, works of art is produced for appraising of the whole society. Critics, who are parts of the society, always don't have the skills of making artwork, but they have perspicuous views, which may help artists make their works of art become more mature in order to give the society lasting value. Secondly, critics can judge works of art better than ordinary people who are not good at evaluating artwork. Most of the well-known paintings have become popular after critics gave out high comments about them, such as Leonardo da Vinci's work of “Mona Lisa” came to be known for its mysterious smile only after some critics had found it. In short, lasting value of arts may not be obtained without the help of critics.

However, the competences of critics are not equal. We may find some critics around us, who even don't have the ability to judge works of art. They just go with others to exhibitions or museums in the purpose of criticizing the artists without a professional reason, for lack of knowledge. This kind of people exists factually, but they cannot delegate all the critics. It is sure that there are a great many critics who are devoted to help the whole society understand better the works of art. We cannot live without them.

To conclude, we must make just judgment on critics who also contribute to the values of artwork. In order to acknowledge better the lasting value of works of art, we have to concern the effects of both artists and critics.

[ 本帖最后由 whyaddd 于 2006-7-12 15:23 编辑 ]

nostrumUID: 2124189

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

写的有点奇怪，桐子们留链互拍

[ 本帖最后由 nostrum 于 2006-7-13 23:24 编辑 ]

mayaUID: 199038

限时写的，自我感觉不是很好，希望拍砖，必回拍，谢谢！
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-492326-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 maya 于 2006-7-10 22:36 编辑 ]

tamukaUID: 2146034

MY FIRST PIECE OF ISSUE!3X!
Da vinci, the famous artist of painting, was known by the world many years after his death. Einstein, the great physical scientist who gave the theory of relativity, was afraid to let the world know his work until his life ended. Neither of them was recognized by people at first just because there was no critics who had the ability to evaluate their works and make the world known how great they were. So while we value the contribution of the artist, there is no need to trivialize the significance of critic's work.

It's common knowledge that without artist there would be no works of art of any sort. Any artist in the world has been doing hard--even spent their life time--for their work. Da vinci gave world the famous smile of Mona Lisa, which was treated as treasure that represents the peak of art in painting. Einstein described the essence of mass and set a milestone of physics when as he said was on the shoulder of giant. Artists' intelligence fills the world of art with colorful stars which shine brightly and make the society develop. A democracy is not called a democracy without their existence.

However, it is usually the critic who discovers the artist, makes him or her known to the public, and records his or her achievement in history books. No artist would expect people to understand everything that he or she has done, but certainly they would like people to be clear about the importance of their works either for the development of the society or just for enjoyment. This job was definitely done by critics, who first let society know the existence of the artist, and the contribution he or she has done, then record the achievement in the history books in memory of the resplendence. Without critics, artists would be just in a world nobody can get into or even hear about, and then their names would vanish through flush of the history river.

Additionally, the critic's criticism helps the artist to improve his or her work. The artists cannot see every aspect of his or her works, some advice or defect of the works is strongly needed. It is a way to improve the work and also the qualification of the artist.

In sum, we should recognize the great contribution the artist has done through his or her long endeavor, and also value the work of critics who show the greatness of the artist. They compromise the system which gives society something of lasting value and make people's everyday life more brilliant.

morallreyUID: 2191298

seat taken!
To hand in writing!

dreadfullUID: 2137047

先占个座

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-492753-1-1.html
欢迎拍砖，有拍必回

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "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.
WORDS: 492          TIME: 2:21:41          DATE: 2006-7-11

It is quite a controversial issue to deciding whether the artist or the critic create the lasting value. I absolutely agree with that the artist's originality is the most important to the value of works of art. However, it is not appropriate to totally neglect the function of critics in the process of creating this value.

Art has a lasting value in aesthetics, which is delivered by the artist through his/her work. Beethoven's ninth symphonies express the  power of life, while Mozart's sonata are full of glory of humanity; Michelangelo's statuary David exhibits the beauty of human body, while Mona lisa's smile created by Da Vinci left people infinite wonder. When creating these significant works, composers devoted into the music their emotion and thoughts, which is the soul of the work. The artist's inspiration and creativity make a great work, thus artist is undoubtedly essential to the lasting value of works of art.

However, another essential value provided by art is the sense of social education and we should not ignore the important part that the critics make in the process of transmitting artists' personality into social value.  Someone may argue that not like science, art is for appreciation rather than telling some knowledge, and the critics just stop individuals from cultivate their own understanding. To rebut, I will demonstrate the function of critics in two respects.

Firstly, in my view, the function of critics don't lie on that they tell some facts, or rather their opinions may induce comprehensive cerebration and response. Take movies for example. When a film is completed, its value is still confined in a small field. Critics evaluate this film and present his/her perspective on media, such as newspaper, TV, and internet. No matter it is applause or depreciation, the criticism attracts society's attention. People may disagree with the critic, then they may come up with new positions. The understanding of the film may get much deeper in debate, till it finally has an impact on social values or even creats new ones. In other fields of art such as literature, which has a much longer history, we can also observe the function of crtics.

Secondly, compared with common people, the critics usually have a deep insight into the value of artistic works. Most professional critics are learned in relevant fileds, or sometimes they are the top masters. They clearly know from which points should the work be analysed, and they have a substantial background of artistic culture. They may point out the specific condition of creation and how it may affect the originator. Without these information, common people may just have a superficial understanding or intuitionistic feeling. It is helpful for appreciator to based their own ideas on professional background introduction. In this sense, critics play a crucial role in the aesthetic education.

In sum, while artists are essential in creating lasting values through their works, critics also own specific and important status in this process.

[ 本帖最后由 dreadfull 于 2006-7-11 14:12 编辑 ]

zbjiangUID: 201115

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

希望大家给看看，本人的issue第一篇，欢迎拍转
7.26杀G，时间紧迫啊

issue144:"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.

中文提纲：
1.艺术家创造艺术，给社会带来lasting value，给人们带来精神上的寄托和安慰

2.批评家能促进艺术的长足发展，同样给社会带来lasting value，对于观众来说，去其糟粕取其精华，可以吸引他们的注意，使得艺术家的作品能流传开来；对于artist来说用促进作用。

3.过多的，过分的批评会阻碍艺术的发展，损害社会的lasting value

One of symbols of the society's advancement is the art's advancement, to which the artist and the critic contribute themselves together. Although the author asserts that the artist has given society something of lasting value, not critic, in my opinion, the advancement of art calls for a balance between the artist and the critic, no matter what effects, positive or negative, the critic could make to art.

  No doubt that the artists have made the great and everlasting value to our society in many aspects, including the outstanding paintings that inspire people and give human hopes, the symphonies and movies that release human's ideas, meanwhile, in many fields even in religions that purify human's spirit with the artists' works. The great artist Vinci, I believe everyone knows him as his work Mona Lisa, represents the outstanding to people and his works draw the world's eyeball. With Mona Lisa's mystical smile he makes people enjoy art and his work gives the whole society the everlasting value. Besides the painting, other art works also have the great value that will be in the world for ever. They contribute greatly to the advancement of art.

  Not only the artists, but also the critics devote to the progress of art, because the critic would be activator to promote the artist works, in the other hand, the critic would be filter for human to give rid of the draffy and leave the distillate. Furthermore, the moderate critique can make the artist works being more valuable to society. As some great man has said that no critique, no progress. This sentence represents the meaning of the critic's existence.

  But just like the general rule, the extreme is bad. Over critique might strike the young artist's enthusiastic zeal and influence that the public judgments to the works that might be good become opposite to the original and right ones. Van Gogh, who created the impressionism on painting, and his works didn’t be accepted until his death. The main reason causing this result is that critics did not appreciate his works and induct the public to criticize them. But his thoughts and works are great and originality, as has been proved by being appreciated by public in latter time. As this example has indicated, this kind of critique would block the advanced paces of art and destroy the society of lasting value.

The relationship between artists and critics is just like the universal regular in the world. The phenomena that one side has more advantage than the other-too many artists’ works or criticises -is the poison of the art, and it could not bring the lasting value to society. So the society of art needs a balance between the artist and the critic.

[ 本帖最后由 zbjiang 于 2006-7-11 10:23 编辑 ]

cellophane05UID: 2135343

Issue144 提纲：
（1） definition of lasting value, the roles played by artist and ciritcs
（2） In the regime of Painting. example, vincent Van Gogh
（3） In the regime of music, Beethoven
（4） In the regime of fiction, More, and his Utopia
（5） conclusion.
作文正在重新写

update：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2
早上刚刚写的，迷迷糊糊，生物钟要调节过来，适应考试啦

[ 本帖最后由 cellophane05 于 2006-7-11 09:15 编辑 ]

carolinexixiUID: 2224375

中文提纲:
1.艺术家在provide society something of lasting value的作用.
2.虽然评论家可以帮大家更好的理解art,但art一旦被统一的标准judge和interpretation了就不称之为art了
3.虽然评论家能帮助艺术家完善作品,但仅限于技巧手法范围,真正的艺术思想是不能被改变的.
总结,是艺术家,而不是评论家赋予社会了value.
全文
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

欢迎讨论,有拍必回

[ 本帖最后由 carolinexixi 于 2006-7-12 22:37 编辑 ]

KASINIUID: 2142455

Does artist give society something of last value rather than the critic? The authour think so. As we all know, the art works are created by artists, and it is artists' innovated mind make the work fabulous. However, without critics, these famous works is hard to be accepted by ordinary people and they may have a lasting value.

It is artists, who give the birth of art. Without them, critics is just like a great chef, running out of meats, vegetables, seasoning. Although the chef may be well command of the cooking, none dish can be accomplished. Artists, with the passion to create a artistic world, devoted their time and thoughts into the art itself, making efforts to promote the art's value, and eventually gestate their works.

It is artists, whose creativy is the major resource of the incredible masterpieces. The inspiration and creativity of artist usually determine the art's value. It is the difference between talented drawer and ordinary wall painter, between proffessional singer and fan of music. Further, the creativy of the artistic works give the appreciater the most fun of art. If a work is less of creativity, then, the work seem to be poor in the value. Schubert's piano songs impressed most of the people for its creativy in the romantic style. Dan brown's Davinci code caught a great number of people's eye for its creativity in the startling plots. And the modern dancing entertained a large amount of peole for its creativity in its choreography. It is creativity that results in the importance of the artistic of the works.

Without critics, most of the people could not perceive the exact meaning of the masterpieces, and the lasting value of the work may be neglected. Generally, people are not experts in art, just being intereted in the art just because of the arts' fuctions, relaxation and education. Moreover, some peole appreciate the style of art of the method to decription from the critics' comments, which tell us the value in the artistic works, and the way to analyze this kind of works. Picaso, the famous artist, is well-known for its abstractive pictures. And he is not famous in his age until he passed away. This probably resulted from the reason than the critics in his age were not as good as the the ones after he died, or just could not understand the meaning of his picture. ALso people living near him, even noticing the strange pictures, cannot discover the distinguished character in his pictures. Thus the pictures become unknown at his age.

In sum, artist is the one give society of lasting value for the birth of artistic works and their creativity. However, without critics' commentations and artcile, these artistic works may not be as famous as it is today and even the value of art may be undermined. The conclusion is that the artist play the main role to give the society of lasting value, but the cirtics is also necessary.   
请指教

lixiaoxiangUID: 2224622

en 今天写

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

[ 本帖最后由 lixiaoxiang 于 2006-7-13 19:46 编辑 ]

yogurt4UID: 198389

support~~~~
+mm辛苦了,hoho

flyaway~UID: 2202450

144.”It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.”

Syllabus: largely agree
1.        concession: critics have some merits
2.        artists’ capacity determine the value of different artistic works
3.        in many occasions, critics may be detrimental to perpetuate value of artistic works

In the first place, the speaker fails to adequately definite the term “the lasting value”. In my view, the lasting value means that something can provide invaluable and unique reflection of that time for the contemporary and future generation to understand and appreciate the history and culture better, or something that can exert positive advantages on the progress of human beings. Thus, although the critics have some merits apparently, I still basically agree with the speaker that it is artist who can give something of lasting value.

Admittedly, under several certain circumstance, critics can exert some merits. Generally speaking, in most people’s mind, they have three main functions. First, they can act as the feedback to urge the artists create much more outstanding works. Second, they can act as the communication bridge between the audience and creators. Third, the critics can help us to decide which artistic work is worthy our attention.
However, I still largely agree that it is the artists who give us something of lasting value rather that the critics. And even, often enough, the critics may impede the creation of the artists and let alone to mention whether they will bring something valuable. Reasons are below.

Firstly, whether the value of artistic works can be perpetuated is entirely decided by artists’ unique talent and original ability who create them. For the reason that artists are the very person who give birth for their works, the so-called importance of critics makes no sense. It is no denying that without Da vinci, we would never have the opportunity to appreciate Mona Lisa, which is one of the greatest treasures in the Louvre Palace in France. Da vinci created the tri-dimensionality space paining system, he successfully combined painting art and geometry and left significant value for the future generations. Consider Beethoven, the talented composer for example. After listening to his symphonies, people can gain strength from it. And his musical works often encourage people to struggle with their adverse destiny. Both of Da vinci and Beethoven have leave something of lasting value for the society.  

Secondly, although critics have some merits as mentioned above, these merits are not related to the purpose—leave something valuable for the society, moreover, if critics are involved in the process of artistic appreciation, sometimes, they will exert several detrimental effects for perpetuating the value of artistic works even. Usually, critics are representative of a certain group or organization, thus their comment may be incorrect or even unjust. He may criticize the artist severely and make the artist lose heart so as to yield valuable artistic works no more. Additionally, the criteria of criticism is always limited on the narrow and established standard. In other words, criticism may not understand the true meaning of ideas of several valuable artists, moreover, they may mislead the masses. Take the genius painter Van gogh for example. He merely sold one piece of painting in his life and led a wretched life. Critics in his time cannot understand him completely, in the contrary, they even regarded him as a madman. The lasting value left by Van gogh is created by himself rather than critics at his time. Therefore, sometimes, critics will impede the creation of artists, let alone to leave something valuable.

In sum, from what has discussed above, we can safely draw a conclusion that it is the artists leave something of lasting value for our society rather than the critics, although critics may have some merits. For the reasons that artists are the people who create original and unique artistic works for the society and perpetuate these works by their talent. Besides, the criticism system may impair creation of the artists and mislead the masses, let alone to mention to judge whether they can leave something valuable.

exp03UID: 2158827

呼吁一下，占了位子就要写，要不写好再占位，呵呵