ISSUE144 米国有米第六次作业 求拍

cckantUID: 2247822

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: 570          TIME: 0:52:45          DATE: 2006-12-21

The speaker asserts that it is the artist, rather than the critic, who provides society something valuable in the long run. A close scrutiny focus on the natural of arts and critics and their relation suggests that the speaker's claim is justifiable to some extent.

To begin with, it is a general perception that critics interpret and reveal the value of an artistic work. However, one with a skeptical eye may ask weather such interpretation and assessment are necessary. Critics commentate on the novel, films, music and so on with their experience and expertise. It seems that the critics can reveal the value of an art work, in a similar fashion what a real estate dealer does in the assessment of a house by comparing it with other counterparts. However, since on the ground that artist in on a position to pursuit highly creative yields, it is implausible for me to make an analogy between a house and painting for example, from a angle rather than a architect. Art work such as a film may be tagged as successful by measuring the ticket revenue, or a painting may be measured on the highest bid for it in an auction. However, it is not a valid mean measuring the lasting value of an artistic work, as such kind of value is not from the prospect of a artist. And hence without gravity to the artistic world, the value measured is not the lasting one to the society.

Moreover, as critics differ from artists in the natural of their profession, interpretation from critics is of limited merit to the society. People may think that, with the help from critics, they may appreciate to the artistic work better. However, it is an equal contingency that they appreciate the art work worse. To my understanding, art is to stimulating imagination and to help people to breakthrough acquired limit of thinking from our daily lives. In the sense, the presentation of an artistic work is of its own purpose to accomplish such goal. The criticism itself has its inherent way of thing from the critic which itself is a constraint to the value of an artistic work. For example, if a writer of a novel believes it is to improve its work by interpret it by some work in addition to the novel's content, why does not he/she just do it, instead of waiting a interpretation from a critic who is never involved in the creation process? Therefore, though people may feel they comprehend the artistic work better, their feelings do not contribute lasting value for the society.

Finaly, despite of that critics do not add value or create lasting value to the society, it has a function of preserving the value of art works. Whether a work is of lasting value can be merely tested by time. As time lapses, works with lasting value should be recognized sooner or later. However, before one work is recognized as valuable, it may not be well preserved. For instance, many copies of old Chinese novels, which are considered as invaluable, no longer exist today. Consequently, without the contemporary critics and critics of succeeding generations the production of these works, people nowadays are not even able to identify their existences. However, via their criticism, we may gain some insight to the works.

In sum, though I concede the merit of critic on preserving the value of some poor preserved artistic works, in principle, I agree with the assertion that it is artist that creates lasing value, not critics.
   

森林116UID: 2272614

The speaker asserts that it is the artist, rather than the critic, who provides society something valuable in the long run. A close scrutiny focus(focused)on the natural of arts and critics and their relation suggests that the speaker's claim is justifiable to some extent.(is justifiable to some extent不能明确表现出作者观点~是8是稍微简洁了点??)  

To begin with, it is a general perception that critics interpret and reveal the value of an artistic work. However, one with a skeptical eye may ask weather such interpretation and assessment are necessary. Critics commentate on the novel, films, music and so on with their experience and expertise. It seems that the critics can reveal the value of an art work, in a similar fashion what(which) a real estate dealer does in the assessment of a house by comparing it with other counterparts. However, since on the ground that artist in on a position to pursuit highly creative yields, it is implausible for me to make an analogy between a house and painting for example, (比喻得很深刻~)from a angle rather than a architect. Art work such as a film may be tagged as successful by measuring the ticket revenue, or a painting may be measured on the highest bid for it in an auction. However, it is not a valid mean measuring the lasting value of an artistic work, as such kind of value is not from the prospect of a artist. And hence (两个关联词是8是重复了??)without gravity to the artistic world, the value measured is not the lasting one to the society.(从反面批评critic而论证~很不错哦~)

Moreover, as critics differ from artists in the natural of their profession, interpretation from critics is of limited merit to the society. People may think that, with the help from critics, they may appreciate to the artistic work better. However, it is (用there is好些) an equal contingency that they appreciate the art work worse. To my understanding, art is to stimulating imagination and to help people to breakthrough acquired limit of thinking from our daily lives. In the sense, the presentation of an artistic work is of its own purpose to accomplish such goal. The criticism itself has its inherent way of thing from the critic which itself is a constraint to the value of an artistic work. For example, if a writer of a novel believes it is to improve its work by interpret it by some work in addition to the novel's content, why does not he/she just do it, instead of waiting a interpretation from a critic who is never involved in the creation process? Therefore, though people may feel they comprehend the artistic work better, their feelings do not contribute lasting value for the society.(还是从critic下手,写得很好~)

Finaly, despite of that critics do not add value or create lasting value to the society, it has a function of preserving the value of art works. Whether a work is of lasting value can be merely tested by time. (???这是什么意思???)As time lapses, works with lasting value should be recognized sooner or later. However, before one work is recognized as valuable, it may not be well preserved. For instance, many copies of old Chinese novels, which are considered as invaluable, no longer exist today. Consequently, without the contemporary critics and critics of succeeding generations the production of these works, people nowadays are not even able to identify their existences. However, via their criticism, we may gain some insight to the works.

In sum, though I concede the merit of critic on preserving the value of some poor preserved artistic works, in principle, I agree with the assertion that it is artist that creates lasing value, not critics.(结尾稍微单薄了点)

这么难的题目LZ能写成这样真不简单,很佩服LZ的思维和组织,相比偶自己真是汗颜~~~~
不过LZ不妨从艺术自身的魅力方面,就是正面论证一下,那样会显得更饱满

cckantUID: 2247822

谢谢。

Whether a work is of lasting value can be merely tested by time －－的意思是一件作品是否有持续的价值只能由时间来证明。或者写成 Whether a work is of lasting value can be merely testified as time lapses.