Issue144～同主题写作第一期～望猛批猛判！

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: 2006-7-11

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。

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.

winnie_nnUID: 2208004

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 [out，我觉得加个out好一些]. In short, lasting value of arts may not be obtained without the help of critics.

However[Admittedly，我觉得这样好一点啊，正好你最后也是又反过来说这种滥竽充数的人不能代表所有的批评家，这样的结构挺不错的，个人认为 ], 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 [for 的这一句什么意思啊，我有点迷糊]. 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. [这句总结显得牵强了一点]

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.

没看出什么语法错误，幸福啊，不像我，一堆语病…
整体感觉很工整，但是没有很出彩的地方，也可能是最近看I144看多了，所以麻木了…
最后一点论述的简单了些

加油~

whyadddUID: 2207005

谢谢哦，winnie_nn   MM！
Bow～

for lack of knowledge，是想说滥竽充数的人，没有真正的专业知识。

我自己也知道，写的所有东西都平铺直叙，没什么吸引人的特色，头疼这点啊！
啥时候能稍微出色一些呢，看来得多看范文的，看得太少，也不太会引用别人的优点！