Issue144 CLVolkov 4月作文小组第14次作业

CLVolkovUID：2305902

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: 595          TIME: 0:53:34          DATE: 2007-4-7

The statement has mentioned a word: value, which could be critical to the issue. Of course, critics doesn't make up a work of art themselves. They just evaluate works of artists. All honor of the work belongs to artists, as I agree. However, I would like to raise the following question: who is it granting the honors to artists? In my opinon, it definitely is the critics.

Let's first look into a tale in ancient China. There were two man,a "qing" (as I didn't know how to translate the musical instrument which has several strings on it and played by quivering them with fingers, I would just use the pronunciation) player named Yu Boya and a listener, or critic, Zhong Ziqi. Once Yu was playing with grand hills in mind, Zhong would cry out: "What a heroic mountain! ". And when Yu played with fluid water in mind, Zhong would say: "How beautiful the stream is! ". They have their minds connected by the music, and they admires each other for creating and understanding the work. However, Zhong passed away one day. Yu was very disappointed. He was so sad that he broke his qing and swore not to play any more, since nobody would be understanding him as Zhong.

I think it exactly the case of the relationships between artists and critics. Yu is not willing to bear a world without Zhong, namely an appreciator. In general,  Artist wouldn't be willing to make up a work not being appreciated. At the least, it should be appreciated by the artist himself or herself. But as we are talking about lasting value of society, we have to mention the role critics are playing, since this honor is definitely not granted to the work by artists themselves. Not before the work was evaluated by critics, no values associated with society would be given. Actually it's critics who carries out the value of an art work.

However, critics would be judging a work with prejudice, especially in a society which is preserved. I would like to bring another example in the field of string theory, which is namely a physics field however has not been accepted by all physicists due to lack of experimental evidences. I would like to treat it as arts since its beauty and elegance. In the 70's, a Soviet scientist Golfond (not Gelfond who works in functional analysis, as people always confuses them) has published his work on supersymmetry on field theory. Similar work was taken out by western physicists in the 80's and appreciated as a great breakthrough in modern physics. However, in the 60's the most distinguished Soviet physicist, Lev Landau, has announced that all kinds of field theories is eventually inconsistent. Therefore his work was being treated as unuseful. In the mean time Soviet Academic of Science was carrying out of a plan of reducing sizes to increase efficiency. Golfond unfortunatelly become one of the "reduced" researchers. Nowadays researchers working in string theory treat Golfond's work of high value. However, the only difference between Soviet and the western world had only been the differences of critics.

To sum up, the value of the work is given mostly by critics. It's the critics who judges a work possessing a value or not, just like the judge and jury decides a suspect's guilty or not. As a suspect may be innocent eventually, his or her fate is eventually sentenced by the judge and jury. The analogue situation exists in art. Artists create works, and critics decide the value. That's the way it works.

寂寞樱花UID：2306511

The statement has mentioned a word: value, which could be critical to the issue. Of course, critics doesn't make up a work of art themselves. They just evaluate works of artists. All honor of the work belongs to artists, as I agree. However, I would like to raise the following question: who is it granting the honors to artists? In my opinon, it definitely is the critics.

Let's first(放到句末吧) look into a tale in ancient China. There were two man,a "qing" (as I didn't know how to translate the musical instrument which has several strings on it and played by quivering them with fingers, I would just use the pronunciation) player named Yu Boya and a listener, or critic, Zhong Ziqi. Once Yu was playing with grand hills in mind, Zhong would(觉得这个可以不要,cry改成过去时) cry out: "What a heroic mountain! ". And when Yu played with fluid water in mind, Zhong would say: "How beautiful the stream is! ". They have their minds connected by the music, and they admires each other for creating and understanding the work(恩,感觉怪怪的). However, Zhong passed away one day. Yu was very disappointed. He was so sad that he broke his qing and swore not to play any more, since nobody would be understanding him as Zhong.

I think it is exactly the case of the relationships between artists and critics. Yu is not willing to bear a world without Zhong, namely an appreciator. In general,  Artist wouldn't be willing to make up a work not being appreciated. At the(确定有the么?) least, it should be appreciated by the artist himself or herself. But as we are talking about lasting value of society, we have to mention the role critics are playing, since this honor is definitely not granted to the work by artists themselves. Not before the work was evaluated by critics, no values associated with society would be given. Actually it's critics who carries out the value of an art work.

However, critics would be judging(judge) a work with prejudice, especially in a society which is preserved. I would like to bring another example in the field of string theory, which is namely a physics field however has not been accepted by all physicists due to lack of experimental evidences. I would like to treat it as arts since its beauty and elegance. In the 70's, a Soviet scientist Golfond (not Gelfond who works in functional analysis, as people always confuses them) has published his work on supersymmetry on field theory(???这个是个理论名字么,前面没出现,如果是可以的话就解释一下最好吧.). Similar work was taken out by western physicists in the 80's and appreciated as a great breakthrough in modern physics. However, in the 60's the most distinguished Soviet physicist, Lev Landau, has announced that all kinds of field theories is eventually inconsistent. Therefore his work was being treated as unuseful. In the mean time Soviet Academic of Science was carrying out of a plan of reducing sizes to increase efficiency. Golfond unfortunatelly become one of the "reduced" researchers. Nowadays researchers working in string theory treat Golfond's work of high value. However, the only difference between Soviet and the western world had only been the differences of critics.

To sum up, the value of the work is given mostly by critics. It's the critics who judges a work possessing a value or not, just like the judge and jury decides a suspect's guilty or not. As a suspect may be innocent eventually, his or her fate is eventually sentenced by the judge and jury. The analogue situation exists in art. Artists create works, and critics decide the value. That's the way it works.

结构和观点上也没什么问题,呵呵,不过例子有点专业化了,感觉没有一点专业知识理解起来有点费力.其他的应该都还没看出有什么问题.请继续加油哦~