issue144

Scofield_thuUID: 2447386

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not thecritic,* who gives society something of lasting value." *a person who evaluates works of art, such asnovels, films, music, paintings, etc.

I partially agree with the speaker on the claim that something of lasting value in the society ismainly given by the artist. But it totally ignores the excellent critics in thehistory who really made contribution to the society and the progress of the art.

On one hand it isundeniable that the artist is the main strength to create and produce valuablethings to the society. The mission or the purpose of artist, if not appropriate,is to create new ideas, build fresh images, explore insight to human nature,and finally project these thought into the form of art such as novels, films,music, and paintings etc. So we refer the artistic works as to the mind andthought of artist. The paintings of Picasso represent the dissatisfaction ofthe society and the way he fight against it, while the music of Beethoven willbring you along the miserable life with a beating heart.

On the other handthe critic who evaluates works of art has different mission from the artistwhich makes them indispensable. Normally speaking the critic is supposed to propose judgment, evaluation or even the impress of the artistic works. In deedmany of critics are not specialized on the specific art works at all. They arejust in the related fields and give their feeling and opinion according totheir own understanding from different angle, which is also required for the progress of the art. Their work acts more likely as guide or reference otherthan criticism. So we can not deny the functionality of the critic.

Many well-known peoplein the history not only act as great artists who can invent a lot of marvelousand inspiring works but they can do well as critics as well. In addition theone who have achievement both in creation and evaluation works of art can do abetter job because the two sides can interact and promote with each other. WangGuowei and Ch'ien Chung-Shu in China literature history are good example to validate the point above.

The true valuable thing that last forever is not judged by who create them, whether artist orcritic. It depends whether the works of art or criticism are really of lasting value, such as if or not it reflects the human nature, lasting value of mankindor just say essence of beauty. Though it is obvious not the question concernedhere, I still want to emphasize that the valuable thing is judged based onitself not on who created it.

In sum, thespeaker’s assertion that it is only the artist, not the critic who givessociety something of lasting value begs the question, because both the artistand critic make great contribution to the progress of the art. In addition theyact in an integral way and complement each other during the procedure of art creation.

[ 本帖最后由 Scofield_thu 于 2008-1-15 11:52 编辑 ]

hischildUID: 2143480

I partially agree with the speaker on the claim that something of lasting value in the society is mainly given by the artist(artists). But it(the claim) totally ignores the excellent critics in the history who really made contribution to the society and the progress of the art.

On one hand, it is undeniable that the artist is the main strength to create and produce valuable things to the society(我觉得这句话有逻辑漏洞，创造价值的人不止艺术家是主要力量，还有科学家和各行各业的人呢). The mission or the purpose of artist, if not appropriate,is to create new ideas,to build fresh images, to explore insight to human nature,and finally to project these thoughts into the form（different forms ） of art such as novels, films,music, and paintings etc. So we refer the artistic works as to the mind and thought of artist. Such as The paintings of Picasso represent the(his) dissatisfaction of the society and the way he fight against it, while the music of Beethoven will bring you along the miserable life with a beating heart.

On the other hand, the critic who evaluates works of art(art works) has different mission from the artist, which makes them indispensable. Normally speaking the critic is supposed to propose judgment, evaluation or even the impress of the artistic works(感觉有点中文化，提起...应该用refering吧？). In deed, many of critics are not specialized on the specific art works at all(语气太强，感觉要转折，但是后面没转，用递进关系比较好ALTHOUGH..). They arejust in the related fields and give their feelings and opinions according to their own understanding from different angles, which is also required for the progress of the art. Their work acts more likely as a guide or reference other than criticism. So we can not deny the functionality of the critics.

Many well-known people in the history not only act as great artists who can invent(艺术只能创造不能发明) a lot of marvelous and inspiring works but they can do well as（be excellent） critics as well. In addition, the one who have achievement both in creation and evaluation works of art can do a better job because the two sides can interact and promote with each other(改成短句子，长句子里指代不清). WangGuowei and Ch'ien Chung-Shu in China literature history are good example to validate the point above.

The true valuable thing that last forever is not judged by those who create or evaluate them-whether artist orcritic(neither...nor...). It depends whether the works of art (art works) or criticism are really of lasting value, such as if or not it reflects the human nature, lasting value of mankindor just say essence of beauty. Though it is obvious not the question concernedhere, I still want to emphasize that the valuable thing is judged based onitself not on who created it.(说实话，你前面所有的论述效果被这段抵消了哇，前后矛盾，如果不存在客观持久价值的艺术品，何必论述到底是艺术家重要还是评论家厉害，谁对艺术的贡献大？粉红那句话看不懂哇)

In sum, the　speaker’s assertion that it is only the artist, not the critic who gives society something of lasting value begs the question, because both the artistand critic make great contribution to the progress of the art. In addition（Since） they act in an integral way and complement each other during the procedure of art creation.

蓝色的是我加的，红色粗体的是觉得可以删的，橙色是我改过哒

1、你的词汇比我好，但是要注意标点，冠词用法；
2、排比的前后对应要注意
3、我觉得很大一个问题是你没有文章的主题句，或者说你的主体句就构成第一段（主体句要清晰的表明自己的观点“我认为....”，不是对某种说法同意或是不同意，这种观点的缺点是...）。其实这种写法显得很单薄，感觉像AGU，ISSUE要和AGu完全区别开来，不然很吃亏的。而且主体句要涵盖所有支持段落的观点哦.....：）

偶捏拙见，鞠躬~~

[ 本帖最后由 hischild 于 2008-1-15 17:42 编辑 ]

Scofield_thuUID: 2447386

感谢hischild的意见，粉红色的还是有疑问的部分,并列的句子需要带to么？

I partially agree with the speaker on the claim that something of lasting value in the society is mainly given by the artist. But the claim totally ignores the excellent critics in the history who really made contribution to the society and the progress of the art.

On one hand, it is undeniable that the artist is the main strength to create and produce art works of great value to the society. The mission or the purpose of artist, if not appropriate,is to create new ideas,to build fresh images, to explore insight to human nature,and finally to project these thoughts into different forms of art such as novels, films,music, and paintings etc. So we refer the artistic works as to the mind and thought of artist. Such as The paintings of Picasso represent hisdissatisfaction of the society and the way he fight against it, whilethe music of Beethoven will bring you along the miserable life with abeating heart.

On the other hand, the critic who evaluates art works has different mission from the artist, which makes them indispensable. Generally speaking the critic is supposed to propose judgment, evaluation or eventhe impress of the artistic works. In deed, many critics are not specialized on the specific art works. They are just in the related fields and give their feelings and opinions according to their own understanding from different angles, which is also required for the progress of art. Their work acts more likely as a guide or reference other than criticism. So we can not deny the functionality of the critics.

Many well-known people in the history not only act as great artists who can produce a lot of marvelous and inspiring works but they can be excellent critics as well. Inaddition, the one who have achievement both in creation and evaluationworks of art can do a better job. Because both artist and critic  can interact andpromote with each other. WangGuowei and Ch'ien Chung-Shu in China literature history are good example to validate the point above.

The true valuable thing that last forever is not judged by those who create or evaluate them-whether artist orcritic. It depends whether the art works or criticism are really of lasting value, such as if or not it reflects the human nature,presents lasting value of mankind or shows just say essence of beauty.Though it is obvious not the question concernedhere, I still want to mention that the valuable thing is judged based onitself not on who created it.(这句话考试时候可以不写嘿嘿)

In sum, the speaker’s assertion that it is only the artist, not thecritic who gives society something of lasting value begs the question,because both the artist and critic make great contribution to theprogress of the art, since they act in an integral way and complement each other during the procedure of art creation.

[ 本帖最后由 Scofield_thu 于 2008-1-15 18:32 编辑 ]

garfield2008UID: 2444459

有些句子的表达显得空洞，作者是否可以将抽象的意思具体化呢？如第3段中
They are just in the related fields and give their feeling(s) and opinion(s) according to their own understanding from different angle(s), which is(are) also required for the progress of the art. Their work acts more likely as guide or reference other than criticism. So we can not deny the functionality of the critic.
作者用艺术评论是艺术发展的导航说明艺术评论对艺术不可或缺的作用，但这句话显得很干瘪。作者能否将其充实呢？有时我写也会受此问题困扰。

Scofield_thuUID: 2447386

这个是很抽象，主要是没有好的例子来for example，不过写到了由于不同领域理解和观察角度不同应该可以在理论上稍微解释以下了吧，总比直接抛出一个观点来说好吧。不过最好是有丰富的例证，不过这个难度大了点，需要积累