issue144 0806Gstrive小组 miao96

miao96UID: 2360053

issue144 0806Gstrive小组 miao96

issue144


  The speaker's assertion is a dual claim: the artist gives the society something of lasting value while the critic doesn't. I fundamentally agree with the assertion that it is the artist who gives the society something of lasing value but I disagree with the second aspect of the claim: the critic doesn't give the society something of lasting value. I hold the view that the artist is the creator of lasting value and the critic is the finder and communicator of the lasting value.

Admittedly, an artist's inspiration and creative works reflects the full history of human beings and give the society something valuable, they are the creator. Firstly, the work of art presents us with insight into what is eternal and universal. For example, a Renaissance painting of a Madomma and child, for many viewers, is somehow a revelation of transcendent spirituality and certain arrangements of color and movement satisfy us over a long period of time, like the ballet Swan Lake or Impressionist paintings. We judge them as beautiful. Secondly, the work of art is didactic -- they teach us. Shakespeare's Macbeth, for instance, teaches us that inordinate ambition is pernicious. Thirdly, in societies undergoing tremendous change, artists began to use art to agitate for social change, their responsibility, in this view, is to shock.  Georges Braque, the French cubist painter, expressed his conviction that the most valuable art is provocative. “Science reassures us," Braque wrote. "The art disturb us."

When it comes to the speaker's second claim, I hold the opinion that the critic is also the devotee of the things of lasting value for the following reasons: First of all, critics can help us understand and interpret art; a critic who is familiar with a particular artist and his or her works might have certain insights about those works that a layman would not. Take Picasso and his Guernica for example, Picasso was moved to paint Guernica shortly after German planes bombed the Basque town of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. This painting is full of the complexity of symbolism and the impossibility of definitive interpretation so that the citizens can't understand the meaning of the painting. It is through the critics' analysis and interpreting that the layman can understand its portrayal of the horrors of war. Secondly, a critic's evaluation of an art work serves as a filter which helps us determine which art is worth out time and attention. Lastly, a critic can provide feedback for artists, and constructive criticism, if taken to heart, can result in better work, creating the work of art of lasting value.

As for the contribution to the lasting value, I hold the view that the artists devote much more than the critics. The critics are just the roles acting supplementarily.

In sum, both artist and critic are the devotees of the lasting value, and the artist is the creator and the critic is the finder and communicator. Artists and critics supplement each other. As time passer, the greatest works are those which are created by artists and evaluated by critics which draw people's attention towards those works.

icedmathUID: 2343618

issue1440806Gstrive小组 miao96

  The speaker's assertion is a dual claim: the(The)artist gives the society something of lasting value while the critic doesn't. Ifundamentally agree with the assertion that it is the artist who gives thesociety something of lasing value but I disagree with the second aspect of theclaim: the critic doesn't give the society something of lasting value. I holdthe view that the artist is the creator of lasting value and the critic is thefinder and communicator of the lasting value.

Admittedly, an artist's inspiration and creative works reflects the fullhistory of human beings and give(s) societysomething valuable, they are the creator. Firstly, the work of art presents us with insightinto what is eternal and universal. For example, a Renaissance painting of a Madomma(Madonna) andchild*, for many viewers, is somehowa revelation of transcendent spirituality and certain arrangements of color andmovement satisfy (double verbs in a single sentence)us over a long period of time, like the ballet Swan Lake or Impressionist paintings. We judge them as beautiful. Secondly, the work of art isdidactic -- they teach us. Shakespeare's Macbeth, forinstance, teaches us that inordinate ambition is pernicious. Thirdly,in societies undergoing tremendous change, artists began to use art to agitatefor social change, their responsibility, in this view, is to shock.  Georges Braque,the French cubist painter, expressed his conviction that the most valuable artis provocative. “Science reassures us," Braque wrote. "The art disturb us."
Excellent (bolded in blue) appears not onlyin your sufficient examples reflecting your wide horizon, but also in the invulnerablelogics during the whole proving process. Pay a little more attention to your spelling (red part).

When it comes to the speaker's second claim, I hold the opinion that the criticis also the devotee of the things of lasting value for the following reasons:First of all, critics can help us understand and interpret art; a critic who is familiar with a particular artist and his orher works might have certain insights about those works that a layman would not(too similar as one of the model essays). Take Picasso and hisGuernica for example, Picasso was moved to paint Guernicashortly after German planes bombed the Basque town of Guernicaduring the SpanishCivil War. This painting is full of the complexity of symbolism andthe impossibility of definitive interpretation so that the citizens can'tunderstand the meaning of the painting. It is through the critics' analysis and interpreting that (Good! Emphasis structure! )the layman can understand its portrayal of the horrors of war.Secondly, a critic's evaluation of an art work serves as a filter which helpsus determine which art is worth out time and attention. Lastly, a critic canprovide feedback for artists, and constructive criticism, if taken to heart,can result in better work, creating the work of art oflasting value (who is the subject as an omission? The critic or the artist? Confusion.).

As for the contribution to the lasting value, I hold the view that the artistsdevote much more than the critics. The critics are justthe roles acting supplementarily. (The critics are just playing thesupplementary roles.)

In sum, both artist and critic are the devotees of the lasting value, and theartist is the creator and the critic is the finder and communicator. Artistsand critics supplement each other. As time passer(passes),the greatest works are those which are created by artists and evaluated bycritics which draw people's attention towards thoseworks (and draw people's attention towards thoseworks/who draw people's attention towards those works).
整体说来，是很优秀的文章，其中折射出的深厚的艺术内涵让我汗颜。观点鲜明，结构很清晰，思辩性很强，某些复杂句用得很好。不过句式的丰富性有些欠缺，考虑减少对be动词等简单的万能动词的使用转而用更复杂的句式或者词汇来代替。最后，希望能够留心一下拼写！以后多多向LZ学习:)
注：红色部分是修正，蓝色部分是赞！

icedmathUID: 2343618

实在抱歉，这些天晚上回到寝室常因为GTER迟迟出现无法登陆的情形而到今天中午才给您回复。见谅！
您在这篇文章中表现出的艺术方面的见识真的让小生汗颜，要是在句式的丰富性方面注意一点点就接近完美了！向LZ学习中ing...
不过至于argument192，LZ可能写得有些匆忙，整体的印象不如这一篇好。我也是刚开始准备不久，很多地方还需要学习，还望LZ不吝赐教！
一起努力吧！