issue144 『勇往直前小组』第六次作业linshao

linshaoUID：2338229

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.
是艺术家而不是批评家，带给社会一些具有持久价值的东西。
*评价艺术作品，如小说、电影、音乐、绘画等的人。
According to the statement, the speaker argues that only artist gives our society something of lasting value, but not critic. It seems true, however, the speaker overlooks the value of critic.

It is acknowledged that artist created the works, which cannot be changed by the critics, even a stroke on a paint, a score on a song, a word on a novel, can never be made. The work need to be preserved completely, any critique to it is based on the value of itself. The work itself with the lasting value is undeniable

But it is not to say that critics is useless. Some people may claim that critics are always from their own perspective which strict the meaning of work it self. It is true, however, by the time passed, people's perceive to these majestic works became increasingly profound. It is attribute to our critics. An art work likes a gem contained in a stone, critics remove the surface of it gradually from different perspective. At the end, the whole gem will be exposed to us. People in different era have different angle for appreciation. We can see that many ancient art works has its new meaning when the time gone by. Especially in our modern times, many new appraisive ideas to those old works was emerged. Sometimes, the research of one novel can have its group like Dream of the Red Chamber. Thus we can appreciated these works thoroughly by those critics' view.

Some one may claim that it is the critics who restrict the talents. They always refer some artists suffered poor life as Van Gogh and Mozart, and attribute it to be the fault of critics. But I consider that the critics protect and preserved the talents. Taking Van Gogh as an example, although he was so gifted, in his own contemporary, he sold out only one of his works; is it the fault of our critics? Probably not, obviously, the people in that era cannot appreciate his works include many critics. Without the critics who had special discernment, however, these majestic works would never be known by us, but would be buried with him and be forgotten by the history. Even the postimpressionism would still cannot be appreciate by the normal people in our era, but still struggle in the bottom of our society. It is critics, who give the art works, and the author, the status in this field.

In sum, the artists creative works, the critics make art works available for us and let the works lasting for long time.

提纲：
ISSUE218 - "In order for any work of art-whether film, literature, sculpture, or a song-to have merit, it must be understandable to most people."
艺术作品要有价值，无论是电影、文学、雕塑还是歌曲，都必须让大多数人能够理解。


1、艺术作为人们思维和情感的表达，应当为大多数人服务。文学，电影，歌曲
2、但是，现在通常艺术分成高雅艺术elegant art，和通俗的艺术 pop art，这两种艺术都有自己的价值，不一定所有伟大的艺术在当代都能够被大多数人欣赏和认识
3、首先，因为当代技术飞速发展，人们更乐意追求实用的东西，而忽视精神的东西，因此很多人忽视了古典艺术的重要价值。
4、其次，许多艺术家创造的艺术品超出了当时人们的理解范畴，而且极具创造性。

ISSUE165 - "In any given field, the leading voices come from people who are motivated not by conviction but by the desire to present opinions and ideas that differ from those held by the majority."
在任何领域，领先的观点或思想来自于这些人，他们并不是由信念所驱动，而是由想表达不同于大多数人的观点和思想的欲望所驱动。

1、有时确实是的，政治家之所以能够吸引公众的目光，并体现出他的与众不同的才能，就是他们具备不同于大多数人的观点和思维方式；
2、有时是追求内心的热情，尤其在艺术领域；
3、有时则是被坚定的信念所驱使。

ISSUE159 - "The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds."
人类思维会一直都胜过机器，因为机器只不过是人类思维的工具而已。

1、技术的进步造福于人类，表现形式就是机器减低人类的工作负担和危险
2、尽管机器好，但不过是类科技的产物，它不会思考
3、一些人说机器最终会具备思考的能力，并成为人类的威胁，我个人不同意
4、现代人类应当正确看待机器，而不应当过分依赖机器。

ISSUE157 - "There is no such thing as purely objective observation. All observation is subjective; it is always guided by the observer's expectations or desires."
纯粹客观的观察是不存在的。所有的观察都是主观的；它总是被观察者的期望或意愿所左右。

1．要做到完全的客观是不可能的。因为对于被观察物，人们总是不自觉地把自己当作那个被观察物。每个观察者利益不同，教育背景不同，看同样的事物，都要自己的看法。
2．而且主观的观察也有自己的优点，主观才能显示出个性。
3．避免不了主观因素的影响，但是我们可以做到相对的客观。


[ 本帖最后由 linshao 于 2007-7-26 05:03 编辑 ]

strontium023UID：2316968

According to the statement, the speaker argues that only artist gives our society something of lasting value, but not critic. It seems true, however, the speaker overlooks the value of critic.

It is acknowledged that artist created the works, which cannot be changed by the critics, even a stroke on a paint, a score on a song, a word on a novel, can never be made. The work need to be preserved completely, any critique to it is based on the value of itself. The work itself with the lasting value is undeniable(最好举例子充实一下.)

But it is not to say that critics is useless. Some people may claim that critics are always from their own perspective which strict the meaning of work it self. It is true, however, by the time passed, people's perceive to these majestic works became increasingly profound. It is attribute to our critics. An art work likes a gem contained in a stone(比喻好), critics remove the surface of it gradually from different perspective. At the end, the whole gem will be exposed to us. (这里应该是说评论家把表面的东西去掉了,留下内在深层的东西,但比喻的主体珍宝是作品,觉得后来作者好象说的珍宝的是作品的内在.)People in different era have different angle for appreciation. We can see that many ancient art works has its new meaning when the time gone by. Especially in our modern times, many new appraisive ideas to those old works was emerged. Sometimes, the research of one novel can have its group like Dream of the Red Chamber. Thus we can appreciated these works thoroughly by those critics' view.(这段有两个论点,一个是评论家的好处,一个是评论家的不足之出,而下一段说的是不足,所以我觉得应该把后一个观点并到下一段去.)

Some one may claim that it is the critics who restrict the talents. They always refer some artists suffered poor life as Van Gogh and Mozart, and attribute it to be the fault of critics. But I consider that the critics protect and preserved the talents. Taking Van Gogh as an example, although he was so gifted, in his own contemporary, he sold out only one of his works; is it the fault of our critics? Probably not, obviously, the people in that era cannot appreciate his works include many critics. Without the critics who had special discernment, however, these majestic works would never be known by us, but would be buried with him and be forgotten by the history. Even the postimpressionism would still cannot be appreciate by the normal people in our era, but still struggle in the bottom of our society. It is critics, who give the art works, and the author, the status in this field.

In sum, the artists creative works, the critics make art works available for us and let the works lasting for long time.
小结:结构安排需调整一下,感觉作者在开头很简洁,结尾太短了,不过目前我提不出什么建设性的建议,因为我也不太会写开头结尾,我们大家可以讨论一下关于I的开头结尾的写法.

高加索UID：2246937

今天高中同学聚会加狂踢球，累得不行了，这篇修改之后一定补上，sorry

zhangjing106UID：2157010

According to the statement, the speaker argues that only artist gives our society something of lasting value, but not critic. It seems true, however, the speaker overlooks the value of critic.（开头很精炼，但好像缺点什么，可以把自己的观点提一句）

It is acknowledged that artist created the works, which cannot be changed by the critics, even a stroke on a paint, a score on a song, a word on a novel, can never be made. The work need to be preserved completely, any critique to it is based on the value of itself. The work itself with the lasting value is undeniable.(是不是没有写完整啊？)

But it is not to say that critics is useless. Some people may claim that critics are always from their own perspective which strict the meaning of work itself. It is true, however, by the time passed, people's perceive to these majestic works became increasingly profound. It is attribute to our critics. An art work likes a gem contained in a stone, critics remove the surface of it gradually from different perspective. At the end, the whole gem will be exposed to us. People in different era have different angle for appreciation. We can see that many ancient art works has its new meaning when the time gone by. Especially in our modern times, many new appraisive ideas to those old works was emerged. Sometimes, the research of one novel can have its group like Dream of the Red Chamber. Thus we can appreciated these works thoroughly by those critics' view.（这一段写的很好，例子也很形象。不过说宝石在沙子里是不是比在石头里更贴切？）

Some one may claim that it is the critics who restrict the talents. They always refer some artists suffered poor life as Van Gogh and Mozart, and attribute it to be the fault of critics. But I consider that the critics protect and preserved the talents. Taking Van Gogh as an example, although he was so gifted, in his own contemporary, he sold out only one of his works; is it the fault of our critics? Probably not, obviously, the people in that era cannot appreciate his works include many critics. Without the critics who had special discernment, however, these majestic works would never be known by us, but would be buried with him and be forgotten by the history. Even the postimpressionism would still cannot be appreciate by the normal people in our era, but still struggle in the bottom of our society. It is critics, who give the art works, and the author, the status in this field.（也很好啊）

In sum, the artists creative works, the critics make art works available for us and let the works lasting for long time.
言简意赅，行文很流畅，值得学习。

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

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.
是艺术家而不是批评家，带给社会一些具有持久价值的东西。
*评价艺术作品，如小说、电影、音乐、绘画等的人。
According to the statement, the speaker argues that only artist gives our society something of lasting value, but not critic（这个but个人 以为不应该加）. It seems true, however, the speaker overlooks the value of critic.

It is acknowledged that artist created the works, which cannot be changed by the critics, even a stroke on a paint, a score on a song, a word on a novel,（这个句子排比用的好，但是句子结构需要调整下） can never be made. The work need to be preserved completely, any critique to it is based on the value of itself. The work itself with the lasting value is undeniable（是说永恒的价值是艺术品本身的吗，如果是这样的话，是不是承认了批评家在给与永恒价值上是没有用处的？）

But it is not to say that critics is useless. Some people may claim that critics are always from their own perspective which strict the meaning of work it self. It is true, however, by（as） the time passed, people's perceive to these majestic works became increasingly profound. It is attribute to our critics. An art work likes a gem contained in a stone, critics remove the surface of it gradually from different perspective. At the end, the whole gem will be exposed to us. People in different era have different angle for appreciation. We can see that many ancient art works has its new meaning when the time gone by. Especially in our modern times, many new appraisive ideas to those old works was emerged. Sometimes, the research of one novel can have its group like Dream of the Red Chamber. Thus we can appreciated these works thoroughly by those critics' view.
（如果把TS改成，如果说批评家对艺术品的永久价值的产生是没有价值的，这样是不合理的 ， 我觉得和主题更加的切合）
Some one may claim that it is the critics who restrict the talents. They always refer some artists suffered poor life as Van Gogh and Mozart, and attribute it to be the fault of critics. But I consider that the critics protect and preserved the talents. Taking Van Gogh as an example, although he was so gifted, in his own contemporary, he sold out only one of his works; is it the fault of our critics? Probably not, obviously, the people in that era cannot appreciate his works include many critics. Without the critics who had special discernment, however, these majestic works would never be known by us, but would be buried with him and be forgotten by the history. Even the postimpressionism would still cannot be appreciate by the normal people in our era, but still struggle in the bottom of our society. It is critics, who give the art works, and the author, the status in this field.（恩 这段的反例用的很好，不过TS不是很明显啊囧）

In sum, the artists creative works, the critics make art works available for us and let the works lasting for long time.