Issue144【SWEETBOX小组】第五次作业 by 雅典娜的宠儿

wzhfutureUID: 2264867

144"It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."



I strongly agree with the statement that it is the artist ,not the
critic ,who gives society something of lasting value. Artists
translate their ideas to a language by means   of novels, film,
music, paintings ,dramas, sculptures, which can be felt, understood
,even reacted to by our common people. While, critics only give their
commends on these languages .What they do is neither  initial nor
time-consuming compared to  artists' contribution.

First, it is the artists that creates the  arts of lasting value
initially to  society .Consider the   novel "Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn" of Mark Twain ,the film "Roman Holiday" of Audrey
Hepburn,  the famous work "Mona Lisa" of Da Vinci who is also
excellent in many fields, the symphonies of Beethoven, the drama
"Hemlet" of Shakespeare, the sculpture "David" of Michelangelo,
etc.These  works stand for the civilization in cultural  and
spiritual fields  of  our human beings.They impress the viewers the
very moment they see them, leave a deep impression on their memory,
and even affect their lives since then.It is by appreciating them
that we feel pleasant and souls purged. They are classic of art .

Why?Because all of them are the mixture of gorgeous art and distinct
ideas both of which were never used or thought before. Innovations,
having significant influence on  human evolution, are always of great
importance. Meanwhile, artists spent enormous time and energy from
the moment the idea generated to the completion of the work .No one
knows the hardships in the process.  Thus, both of the above reasons
render the work of lasting value to society.

Adimittedly ,critics  do contribute  by some means. In the first
place ,their commends help viewers to understand the masterpieces
better. Lacking relevant knowledge and backgrounds, we may not catch
the spirit of the work easily. The critics can make the meaning
deeply inside the piece of work outside and understood by us .They
may also provide their own thought to widen our sight over the work.
In the second place ,critics may give some feedback to artists. As
different person has different views on the same piece of work ,the
critics may find some flaws  that artist ignored and provide some
valuable suggestions on it.Thus  the artists  may re-think his work
and make improvement.

However,the  none of the contributions above  mean that critics give
society something of lasting value.For the first one,their views  are
just derived from artists' work.If there is no such work,they don't  
have the base from which their thought generates. For the second one
, suppose artists  get some inspiration from the critics and make
their work better , however, the original idea are not from  critics
but  artists. Also  it is artists that spend enormous time and energy
to create  the work and make improvement not critics. Thus, it is
unfair to attribute the work of lasting value to critics.

In final analysis ,artists create works of immense influence on the
civilization  of human race .Meanwhile critics do make contributions
to the works. However, their contributions are so small compared to
the artists' that they can almost be neglected  .Thus, we can make
the conclusion that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives
society something of lasting value.

小破孩UID: 2125288

I strongly agree with the statement that it is the artist ,not the
critic ,who gives society something of lasting value. Artists
translate their ideas to a language by means   of novels, film,
music, paintings ,dramas, sculptures, which can be felt, understood
,even reacted to by our(no need) common people. While,Whereas critics only give their
commends on these languages .What they do is neither  initial nor
time-consuming, i guess it may be better to change it to " meaningful or insightful or some other things", time-consuming really means nothing compared to  artists' contribution.

First, it is the artists that creates the  arts of lasting value
initially to  society .Consider the   novel "Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn" of Mark Twain ,the film "Roman Holiday" of Audrey
Hepburn,  the famous work "Mona Lisa" of Da Vinci who is also
excellent in many fields, the symphonies of Beethoven, the drama
"Hemlet" of Shakespeare, the sculpture "David" of Michelangelo,
etc. These works stand for the civilization in cultural  and
spiritual fields  of  our human beings.They impress the viewers the
very moment they see them, leave a deep impression on their memory,
and even affect their lives since then.It is by appreciating them
that we feel pleasant and souls purged. They are classic of art . The content is good, but your language may need some improvement to make sure it reads well.

Why?what why? what is the question realted to it? A little bit surprise to see "why" here.
Because all of them are the mixture of gorgeous art and distinct
ideas both of which were never used or thought before. Innovations,
having significant influence on  human evolution, are always of great
importance. Meanwhile, artists spent enormous time and energy from
the moment the idea generated to the completion of the work .No one
knows the hardships in the process.  Thus, both of the above reasons
render the work of lasting value to society. It seems that you didn't mention the role of critics in these two paragraphs?

Adimittedly ,critics  do contribute to what? by some means how?. In the first
place ,their commends help viewers to understand the masterpieces
better. Lacking relevant knowledge and backgrounds, we may not catch
the spirit of the work easily. The critics can make the meaning
deeply inside the piece of work outside and understood by us .They
may also provide their own thought to widen our sight over the work.
In the second place ,critics may give some feedback to artists. As
different persons has have different views on the same piece of work ,the
critics may find some flaws  that artist ignored and provide some
valuable suggestions on it.Thus  the artists  may re-think his work
and make improvement.

However,the  (no need) none of the contributions above  mean that critics give
society something of lasting value.For the first one,their views  are
just derived from artists' work.If there is no such work,they don't  
have the base from which their thought generates. For the second one
, suppose artists  get some inspiration from the critics and make
their work better , however, the original idea are not from  critics
but  artists. Also  it is artists that spend enormous time and energy
to create  the work and make improvement not critics. Thus, it is
unfair to attribute the work of lasting value to critics.

In final analysis ,artists create works of immense influence on the
civilization  of human race .Meanwhile critics do make contributions
to the works. However, their contributions are so small compared to
the artists' that they can almost be neglected  .Thus, we can make
the conclusion that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives
society something of lasting value.

I don't think you provide enough evidence or analysis to show that the jobs of critics are really small compared with the artists.
You points are OK. But the language reads not so smooth. I can get your points, but I guess you can learn "how to write GRE sentences" to make your sentence more fluent and more English.
I don't know how to revise issues since I myself still feel lost about it. So just some comments lar. Add oil.

If no one revise your article next time, you can revise other's first. They will come back to revise yours lar : )