issue144 【米国有米－第6次作业】

joochangUID: 2265219

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: 418         DATE: 2006-12-22
提纲：A. 艺术品的创作主体是艺术家，因此，艺术家一定很重要
         B. 一些较差的评论破坏艺术家的创造性
         C. 好的评论能够促进民众对艺术的理解


The speaker asserts that the artist gives society something of lasting value but critic does not. I agree insofar as the artist contributes much to give society something of lasting value. However, the assertion is indefensible. In my view, the negative effect of criticism should not be neglected.

First of all, the statement that the artist contributes much to give society something of lasting value is quite compelling. Indisputably, as main body in the process of creating artwork, artist's ability determines the value of the art. To illustrate this clearly, here is an instance that can support my reason. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was considered the most famous composer in history, was a inborn talent. When he was a little guy, he was able to play many kinds of instruments. Thus, he finally created a myriad of imperishable famous artwork. Without the artist, it is impossible that we have the change to appreciate so many masterpiece. Accordingly, the artist gives our society something of lasting value.

Admittedly, poor criticism have the negative effect of undermining an artist’s creativity, that’s because a critic may be influenced by his or her ken and personal taste, which will greatly the development of art. Take Van Gogh for instance. In the era of Van Gogh, almost nobody could understand and appreciate his works, and finally he committed suicide. What a pity! Therefore, criticism might impose negative effect to art.

However, it is unfair and unjustifiable to claim that the critic contribute little to give society something of lasting value. In artwork, artist may express his or her distinct view which could not be easily understood by people, here critic could work as a bridge between the elusive artwork and populace. The critic is a vital part, as expected in the process of transmitting art as ink is to a pen or wheels are to a car. Were it removed from the process of explaining and transmitting art, some of masterpieces may not be understood well. Consider the famous painting--Mona Lisa by Dar Vinci. Although populace could not completely understand the mysterious smile, we are more and more close to the truth because of the efforts made by critics.

In sum, I concede the conclusion that artist gives society something of lasting value. However, to some extent, the speaker's claim underrates the importance of the critic, who evaluates works of art. In the final analysis, in my opinion, we should not overemphasize either of them, they work together to create imperishable art.

[ 本帖最后由 joochang 于 2006-12-23 00:35 编辑 ]

chronicleUID: 2254484

The speaker asserts that the artist gives society something of lasting value but critic does not. I agree insofar as (用法有些问题,表示在...范围内) the artist contributes much to (contribute to 的用法问题) give society something of lasting value. However, the assertion is indefensible.(前面已经在某种程度上认可,这里又说其indespensible, 好像不太合适) In my view, the negative effect of criticism should not be neglected.

First of all, the statement that the artist contributes much to give society something of lasting value is quite compelling. Indisputably, as main body in the process of creating artwork, artist's ability determines the value of the art. To illustrate this clearly, here is an instance that can support my reason. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was considered the most famous composer in history, was a inborn talent. When he was a little guy, he was able to play many kinds of instruments. Thus, he finally created a myriad of imperishable famous artwork. Without the artist, it is impossible that we have the change (chance?) to appreciate so many masterpiece. Accordingly, the artist gives our society something of lasting value.

Admittedly, poor criticism have the negative effect of undermining an artist's creativity, that's because a critic may be influenced by his or her ken and personal taste, which will greatly (handicap?) the development of art. Take Van Gogh for instance. In the era of Van Gogh, almost nobody could understand and appreciate his works, and finally he committed suicide. What a pity! Therefore, criticism might impose negative effect to art.
举例有些问题。当时人们不能理解凡高的作品，并不能看出评论所起到的负面作用。只不过人们在当时没能看到凡高作品中的深意。例子对于论点的支持不够，或是对于例子的论述不完整。

However, it is unfair and unjustifiable to claim that the critic contribute little to give society something of lasting value. In artwork, artist may express his or her distinct view which could not be easily understood by people,(缺少连词) here critic could work as a bridge between the elusive artwork and populace. The critic is a vital part, as expected in the process of transmitting art as ink is to a pen or wheels are to a car. Were it removed (?) from the process of explaining and transmitting art, some of masterpieces may not be understood well. Consider the famous painting--Mona Lisa by Dar Vinci. Although populace could not completely understand the mysterious smile, we are more and more close to the truth because of the efforts made by critics.

In sum, I concede the conclusion that artist gives society something of lasting value. However, to some extent, the speaker's claim underrates the importance of the critic, who evaluates works of art. In the final analysis, in my opinion, we should not overemphasize either of them, they work together to create imperishable art.

文章结构比较清晰，观点明确，语言流畅。只是在让步的那一段没有说清道理，有些缺陷。
另外可以对例子再展开一些进行论述。