Issue144 艺术类的高频，留链必回！

chongxinlaiUID: 2235209

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.

The issue of whether the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value remain complicate and controversial. In my observation, I agree with the statement in so far as that  the lasting value of art works stem from the artists. However we should not overlook the function of critic who serve to render lasting value of art works to the whole society. My view will be substantiated by the following discussion to a great extent.

Admittedly, the lasting value of art works are created by artists. Anyone who is an artist  or student studying art  know that  a true art work contain an artist's unique and creative impulsion, the process of creating art works is completely uninfluenced by outside, such as comments from those critic. When a piece ofwork is made, its lasting value has existed no matter whether it would be understood and acknowledged by the masses or not. Take marble statue Venus de Milo for example. When Heleen Vriensendorp devoted himself into creating such work, he onlytook into account how to make a satisfied work regardless of the negative opinions of contemporary critic and populace at that time.

Nowadays, those opposite sounds all disappeared, leaving only a beautiful goddess and external art value. In this sense, the lasting value of art works do not hinge on the function of critic, it is merely determined by artists themselves.Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider the importance of critics who bring such lasting value to common people and society. On one hand, by hard efforts of critics, lots of layer person could understand and appreciate the true value of those invaluable art works. Compared with most people who fail to receive long-term special education of art, those critics are more likely to understand the situation of artist and his or her art works. Therefore they can teach the outsiders how to evaluate and appreciate such works. Moreover, there are too much art works in our society. Without enough time and energy to appreciate all works, people fail to select the minority of them which have lasting value. Such critics serve as filters which can censor and pick out those works of little value for fear squandering our time. For example, a famous director create a terrible film which attract many people because of his old success.But for the comment of critics who suggest people not to watch the film, most of people who like this director's works may waste their time and money .Under this circumstance, it is evident that critic facilitate people understand which art works have real lasting value.


On the other hand, preserving those art works of lasting value is the job of critic, especially in modern commercial society. Even the masses have the ability of appreciate those abstract artist works, most of them prefer to select others, since they seems to wish simply to be pleased. Therefore the higher forms of art are not popular in our society. Consider many records, such as the piper at the gates of dawn which are regarded as invaluable art works, They may still be commercial failures, since they are unsuitable for modern people's favor.  The free market offers no outlet for them. Without the critics, such works with artistic value may disappear in the world. On all accounts, the  critic benefits survival and growth of art works with lasting value.

Accordingly, because of the aforementioned reasons, it is not difficult to draw a the conclusion that the artists create those lasting value and the critics protect and develop it. To help much more people understand and appreciate those invaluable artistic works , we should call for a balance between them.

[ 本帖最后由 chongxinlai 于 2007-3-24 21:17 编辑 ]

lmfredUID: 183247

Is it the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting
value, as the speaker claims? In my observation, I agree with the statement
that  the lasting value of art works stem from the artists. However we
should not overlook the function of critic who give such invaluable art
works to the masses and whole society.

Admittedly, the lasting value of art works are created by artists. Anyone
who are artists (is an artist ) or studying arts know that  a true art work contain an
artist's unique and creative impulsion, the process of creating art works is
solely without influence from (completely uninfluenced by) outside, such as comments from those critic.
When a piece of work is made, its lasting value exists no matter it would be understood
and acknowledged by the mass. Take marble statue Venus de Milo for
example. When Heleen Vriensendorp devoted all his time and energy into creating
such work, he only took into account how to make a satisfied work regardless
of the negative opinions of contemporary critic and populace. Nowadays,
those opposite sound all disappear, only leaving a beautiful goddess and
external art value. In this sense, the lasting value of art works do not
hinge on the function of critic, it is merely determined by artists
themselves.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider the importance of critic who bring
out such value to common people and society. On one hand, by hard efforts of
critics, lots of laymen could understand and appreciate the true value
of those invaluable art works. Compared with most people who fails to
receive long-term special education of art, those critics are more likely to
understand the situation of artist and his or her art works. Therefore they can teach
the outsiders how to evaluate and appreciate such works. Moreover, there are
too much art works in our society. Without enough time and energy to
appreciate all works, people has to select the minority of them which
have lasting value. Such critics serve as filters which can sort out those
greatest works. For example, an outstanding director create a failure film.
But for the comment of critics who suggest people not to watch the film,
most of people who like this director's works may waste their time and
money (这例子有问题，不是很切合前面的论点. 可以举一个真正有价值作品如何被评论家挑选出来的例子)
Accordingly, critic facilitate people understand which art works have
real lasting value.

On the other hand, preserving those invaluable art works is the job of
critic, especially in modern commercial society
(这个论点与上一段的第一个类似，其实都是评论家能够把艺术作平的价值展现给大家).
After all, lots of art works are too abstract and profound to understand by the masses. Therefore
they inadequate to economic value (有问题) for they are not popular in our society.
Consider many records, such as the piper at the gates of dawn which are
regarded as invaluable art works, They may still be commercial failures, since
they are unsuitable for modern people's favor. Without the
critics, such works with artistic value may disappear in the
world. On all accounts, critic benefits survival and growth of art works with
lasting value.

In sum, the artists create those lasting value and the critics protect and
develop it. To make art works of lasing value be beneficial to every member and the
whole society, we should call for a balance between them.

文章逻辑结构不错，语法错误以及用词不当较多，论证如果能把倒数第二段挖掘一下会更有力度。

欢迎修改：链接：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-634052-1-2.html