Issue144

xiawucha07UID: 2229597

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

I strongly agree with the author's point of view that the artists endow the artistic works with lasting value while that endued by the critic is always not constant but change with times.

Primarily, when an artwork created by an artist, the artistic value of the work has been produced, and it will never fade away with lapsing time. For an artistic production, perhaps it is a painting, or a building or a musical composition, once it is produced, the great skill of painting, or the novel shape of the building or the melodious tune of the music, which may be the valuable point, has been included in the work as an inherent component and can not be excluded. Doubtlessly, the lasting value should be attributed to the artists. For example, when Shakespeare created Shylock, to whom he attached a label of miserly money leading character, and through whom communicated a thought of humanism, the artwork has been provided with constant appeal; and when Macbeth becomes the classic type of craving for power and betrayal of friends, the disclosure of the ugly profiles of human nature has endowed the drama enduring artistic charm. If we retrospect the bypast history, we need not spend much time discovering that any great artwork, no matter its style or expressed idea is accepted by the contemporary or not, with time lapses and the thought of people changes, its artistic value will not be shadowed and it will finally manifest itself.

But, oppositely, what is brought by the critic to the artistic works seems to be mainly social value and further business value, which are both not lasting ones. Admittedly, I concede that since the critic has professional knowledge and perspective, they can really help us to understand and appreciate the sometime obscure and vague art. And, the populace may accordingly express their favor and even admiration to the works and the artists, and the works may be sold and auctioned at a high price. That is what I have mentioned above as social and business value. However, such a value can not be a constant one, on the contrary, it is decided by both the idea of the critic and the mainstream thought of the society.

To support my viewpoint, return to the case of Shakespeare. During the Restoration period when the critic community and the mainstream culture favored neoclassicism, Shakespeare was rated below his contemporary playwriters. And the neoclassical critic Tomas Rymer even condemned Shakespeare about mixture of the comic and tragic. Such an underestimate continued until the middle of the eighteenth century when an increasing appreciation of Shakespeare finally overwhelmed the effect of neoclassicism. From this case, obviously, although the artistic value of Shakespeare’s dramas have never changed, their social effects is so distinguishing in different times, which may be partly, if not totally, attributed to the critic’s comments. In this sense, the critic has nothing to do with giving something of lasting value to the society, but sometimes mislead the aesthetic of the commonalty.

Taken together, even if not airtight, I can safely arrive at the conclusion that the people who endue artworks with constant value are artists, but not the critic. Thus when we evaluate an artwork, the possible negative effects of the critic can not be overlooked, which may help us to recognize the truly and enduring value of art.
     

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-7-31 17:27 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

I strongly agree with the author's point of view that the artists endow the artistic works with lasting value while that endued by the critic is always not constant but change with times.

Primarily, when an artwork created by an artist, the artistic value of the work has been produced, and it will never fade away with lapsing time.(作为陈述性的话有些绝对了, 而且不知道你这个主题句想强调的论点是什么. 永恒? 一起诞生? 没艺术家就没价值? 所有艺术品都有价值? 注意对中心论点的回应, 突出你要论证的重点--艺术品的永恒价值由艺术家赋予) For an artistic production, perhaps it is a painting, or a building or a musical composition,(such as...) once it is produced, the great skill of painting, or the novel shape of the building or the melodious tune of the music, which may be the valuable point, has been included in the work as an inherent component and can not be excluded. Doubtlessly, the lasting value should be attributed to the artists.(why? 论断句和说明句不同, 需要解释支持, 前面一句话没提到艺术家, 这里直接doubtlessly是不合适的) For example, when Shakespeare created Shylock, to whom he attached a label of miserly money leading character, and through whom communicated a thought of humanism, the artwork has been provided with constant appeal(why? 写人的特性不等于有价值, 如何联系人性? 这种联系对社会有什么好处? 给我们带来什么? 光描述一部作品是说明不了其价值的, 要说出它对社会的意义); and when Macbeth becomes the classic type of craving for power and betrayal of friends, the disclosure of the ugly profiles of human nature has endowed the drama enduring artistic charm.(麦克白的论证方式就比夏洛克用的好, 注意联系到你的论点, 另外最好说明这里莎翁同学用什么语言, 情节来塑造这些人物, 进而给社会价值, 使逻辑链完整) If we retrospect the bypast history, we need not spend much time (on) discovering that any great artwork, no matter (whether) its style or expressed idea is accepted by the contemporary or not, with time lapses (lapsing, with后面要么跟动名词/独立主格/分词结构都可以, 但不能直接跟句子. 可以是as time lapses) and the thought of people changes, its artistic value will not be shadowed and it will finally manifest itself.(到头来还是没说fade out/永恒的问题, 成篇在说艺术家创造价值, 价值永恒却没有得到解释和支持: 为什么能永恒? 为什么时间走了人变了他们还不变? 因为美学的统一性, 人性的延续性, 社会的整体追求等等, 这些具体原因都没给出, 例子也很泛泛, 没有说到这个问题, 基本都是无根据的假设. 主题句没有重点造成段落重点丢失, 而联系到文章主题句可以看出这段的论证是没有完全覆盖到主题句表达内容的. 另外语法错误太多了, 已经影响到你意思的传达, 建议看看范文总结下常见的语法结构, 写的时候多多推敲下)

But, oppositely, what is brought by the critic to the artistic works seems to be mainly social value and further business value, which are both not lasting ones.(主题句后先解释再用转折, 直接转折就不知道你这段的重点了, 特别是出现admittedly这种词. 从后文来看本段基本是在让步的, 下一段才是这个主题句说的内容, 因此这句不如删去.) Admittedly, I concede that since the critic has professional knowledge and perspective, they(单复数?) can really help us to understand and appreciate the sometime obscure and vague art. And, the populace may accordingly express their favor and even admiration to the works and the artists, and the works may be sold and auctioned at a high price. That is what I have mentioned above as social and business value. However, such a value can not be a constant one, on the contrary, it is decided by both the idea of the critic and the mainstream thought of the society. (这段和下一段的承接关系很不错, 但和上一段的承接就出问题了, 因为上一段没有解释艺术家造艺术的价值为什么能永恒, 所以这里的对比就没有依据, 说不清原因)

To support my viewpoint, return to the case of Shakespeare. During the Restoration period when the critic community and the mainstream culture favored neoclassicism, Shakespeare was rated below his contemporary playwriters. And the neoclassical critic Tomas Rymer even condemned Shakespeare about mixture of the comic and tragic. Such an underestimate continued until the middle of the eighteenth century when an increasing appreciation of Shakespeare finally overwhelmed the effect of neoclassicism.(does this endow Shakespeare's works social values? 反着说不能说名正面的观点的, 短期没给它价值不等于长期不能给它价值, 若是说些被短时间吹捧的流行艺术, 倒是可以解释这个观点) From this case, obviously, although the artistic value of Shakespeare’s dramas have never changed, their social effects is so distinguishing in different times, which may be partly, if not totally, attributed to the critic’s comments.(how? 什么时候有什么特点? 怎么不同的? 跟批评家又有什么关系? 你只说了一个批评家的情况, 没有贯穿的时间轴也没有细节, 很难证明这个问题) In this sense, the critic has nothing to do with giving something of lasting value to the society, but sometimes mislead the aesthetic of the commonalty. (这句话就更没有论据支持了, 我想你的意思是不管批评家怎么说, 有价值的艺术品是一直有价值的, 跟批评家没关系, 但想证明这个论点至少要给出变换的批评家评论和价值作为例证, 而不是用一些没有支持的论断来支持)

Taken together, even if not airtight, I can safely arrive at the conclusion that the people who endue artworks with constant value are artists, but not the critic. Thus when we evaluate an artwork, the possible negative effects of the critic can not be overlooked, which may help us to recognize the truly and enduring value of art.

总评: 这篇文章最后达到的结论很难说是"safely", 因为没有说明艺术家如何让艺术品的价值永恒, 所以后面的批评家造就的价值不能永恒也没有比较, 整体的论证层面很浅, 基本处于叙述事实的层面, 如果问为什么/怎么作用则没有信息来说明. 特别是在采用非平衡观点的一边倒结构式这种层面的论证是不够的, 因为要从根源上把问题归纳才能得到一个绝对化的观点, 否则可以被人轻易驳倒, 因为你没有从理论上归纳就不能覆盖整个领域的情况, 只能就一两个案例讨论, 这种属于不完全归纳. 你的出发点不错, 侧重于lasting value来论证对此题很关键, 而不少考生都很容易忽略这个问题, 可惜的是你在观点中提到了, 论证中却没有说明白.

vitamin_cUID: 2366079

从上一楼的点评中学到很多，谢谢~

楼主，一起加油:)