Issue144--Thrive小组第6次作业，欢迎榴莲拍

z12y12l12UID: 2452277

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.

In the world of art, who give us value that will last longer, the artist, or the critic? The statement assumes that artist provide us lasting value. Artists are creating values; however, I would agree that it is the critic who gives society something of lasting value.

It is true that artists give the society valuable things. Many of novels, movies, music paintings that were created by artists who live in centuries ago are widely enjoyed by today's people. For example, Shakespeare's novels, Beethoven's symphony, Rodin’s figures are all famous in today's society. Artist is the origin of the artworks, they are so creative, outstanding, and brilliant, and thus should be thanked and praised for their significant work. It is just these works made by artists which give the critics a chance to assess. Without these artists, critics will not even able to exist, simply for the reason that there is nothing more for them to evaluate.

Nevertheless, what I want to emphasize is that artist's creation, although very important, do not always last long in the history. There is so many artists’ work, which is remarkable, failed to be acknowledged by contemporary society, and were finally forgot by public. It is the critics who discover those works, and then evaluate them to let the world know his or her artwork. For example, Vincent van Gogh's post-impression paintings are too intricate that people could not understand his work at all; they even consider him as mad. After that, critics started to write literatures working on his strange works, and published them so that public can get access to the real meaning of his work. Finally, with adoration, people appreciated van Gogh’s for his painting. The only way for the public to deeply understand the works, is to get knowledge from critic.

Their evaluation to those works though is not so creative, gives later artists inspiration. Perhaps a novice painter who tried to emulate some paintings will only understand a little of the content and implication, and could not be enlightened by those artworks, and thus he have a long way to go to become great. However, by reading the critic's articles, possibly he could get known on those works and be illuminated by it. It seems that the artist who worked the painting out plays an important role on the enlightening; however, it is the critic who could give artists real feedback and inspiration.

To sum up, critics who evaluate those arts can give the public a method to understand those artists' work, and even give after artists illumination. This value is beyond the original works' value, and lasts longer than they do.

450字....60分钟.....不伦不类哈，字数还是上不去，感觉吧脑袋掏空了还是没有话....

希望拍的人能给点建议....


[ 本帖最后由 z12y12l12 于 2008-2-17 10:58 编辑 ]

westwindyiUID: 2453478

个人意见：楼主这篇文章在句子上还有些混乱，存在主谓，单复数不一致等情况，希望注意。另外，从论证上来说，不算流畅，这使得你本来比较清楚的逻辑有些乱。还有就是应该避免用绝对化的语言。。比如第二段最后一句，第三段最后一句。。加油！
In the world of art, who give us value that will last longer, the artist, or the critic? The statement assumes（假定？） that artist provide us lasting value. Artists are creating values; however, I would agree that it is the critic who gives society something of lasting value.

It is true that artists give the society valuable things. Many of novels, movies, music paintings that were（有点啰嗦） created by artists who live in centuries ago are widely enjoyed by today's people. For example, Shakespeare's novels（莎翁应该是戏剧吧）, Beethoven's symphony, Rodin’s figures are all famous in today's society. Artist is the origin of the artworks, they are so creative, outstanding, and brilliant, and thus should be thanked and praised for their significant work. It is just these works made by artists which give the critics a chance to assess. Without these artists, critics will not even able to exist, simply for the reason that there is nothing more for them to evaluate.

Nevertheless, what I want to emphasize is that artist's creation, although very important, do not always last long in the history（是不是前后矛盾，前面说要强调，后面又说do not last long？）. There is so many artists’ work, which is remarkable, failed to be acknowledged by contemporary society, and were finally forgot by public. It is the critics who discover those works, and then evaluate them to let the world know his or her artwork. For example, Vincent van Gogh's post-impression paintings are too intricate that people could not understand his work at all; they even consider him as mad. After that, critics started to write literatures working on his strange works, and published them so that public can get access to the real meaning of his work. Finally, with adoration, people appreciated van Gogh’s for his painting. The only way for the public to deeply understand the works, is to get knowledge from critic.

Their（？应该说明吧） evaluation to those works though is not so creative, gives later artists inspiration. Perhaps a novice painter who tried to emulate some paintings will only understand a little of the content and implication, and could not be enlightened by those artworks, and thus he have a long way to go to become great. However, by reading the critic's articles, possibly he could get known on those works and be illuminated by it. It seems that the artist who worked the painting out plays an important role on the enlightening; however, it is the critic who could give artists real feedback and inspiration.

To sum up, critics who evaluate those arts can give the public a method to understand those artists' work, and even give after artists illumination. This value is beyond the original works' value, and lasts longer than they do.