issue218 求拍，留链必回~~附，怎么加快写作速度阿？多练？

jinliyun123UID: 2306368

第一次计时写，发现自己很难顺畅的用英文表达，唉，写了两个多小时，。。。。郁闷，多练是不是就可以提速度阿。。。。求同志们给点帮助阿！

不过，这至少是一篇表达自己逻辑思路的文章，用心之作阿，望大家指点。。。
TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 142->634         TIME: 00:45:00 +1:44=2:29         DATE: 2008-7-24 10:16:09
Common sense tells us that true art can envoke our visceral emotion and conjure up our souls.  When we encounter art, we feel
inspired, fascinated by the lights, colors, and styles. But can we consider that we have these feelings of an art work,  
thereby we understand it? If the answer is no, then how to judge whether art have merit or not?
In my opinion, whether art can be understandable to most people is irrelevant to whether art have merit. No matter what art
form, such as film, literature, sculpture, or a song, the true value of art is aesthetic feelings provided to people and the
deeper and potential things it reflected, such as the  release of artist's emotion or the description of social problems.
Admittedly, many of the classic notable art works are known by most people. And we have to admit the unique impact on our
senses and spirits. For example, at the view of Van Gogh's sunflowers, we feel comfortable about the bright and beautiful
colors. Or consider when we hear the music of Mozart, we feel reassure through the dainty melody. Besides, with the
introductions of an art work on the net or in books, we know the meanings which the artist wants to express. So many famous
art works are understand by more and more people.
However, even though the number of people who understand those art works is great, how we know the number reaches the extent
that equals to most? Or even though most of us can receive the aesthetic feeling, how we know the feelings equals to
understanding? For example, at the glance of Van Gogh's sunflowers, we will feel it beautiful, but we may don't know what Van
Gogh wants to manifest. Becasue the true comprehension of art is limited by many factors, as discussed below.
First, people's culture background, or appreciate ability is connected to the understanding of art. As different people get
different education, are good at different things, and have different points of views, some art can't be understood by each
of us. While a largish number of people receive little education on art, or even have no sense of art, most art are only
understood by a small group of people, instead of most. But this phenomenon can't lead us to deny the merit of those art. For
example, Picasso's later pictures are surrealism, a theory which is studied by few of us, so it is hard for most of us to
understand. But we all acknowledge the tremendous merit of Picasso's works.
Second, some art works are ahead of the times, so that however they valuable, those art works are impossible to be accepted
by most of people in contemporary; or in itself, the meanings of art works are dark and unconspicuous, therefore only a few
people can understand them. Still to Van Gogh, when he was alive, his pictures can't comprehended by most of people around
him, but no longer after his death, artists began to realize the merit of Van Gogh's pictures, and some of them learned to
follow the style. So it's unreasonable to judge the value of art by the number of people who understand i
Moreover, the art which most of people understand and like might lack merit, so we can't conclude that most of people can
understand an art work, so the art work definitely has merit. Nowdays most of us like to watch bubble films, whose story
developing in the film iseasy to be understood, and no deeper meanings need to think about. However, such films can't be
regarded to have merit, even not be viewed as art. If art aims to please most of people and become superficial, art will die.
In sum, if art is easy to understand, more people will appreciate it, and it is easier for us to see the merit of it as soon
as possible. But there's no connections between the value of art and the number of people who can understand art. Art's merit
is only judged by the aesthetic aspect and profoundity.


[ 本帖最后由 jinliyun123 于 2008-7-25 21:31 编辑 ]

jinliyun123UID: 2306368

怎么格式出了点问题呢，再发一遍
TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 142->634         TIME: 00:45:00 +1:44=2:29         DATE: 2008-7-24 10:16:09

Common sense tells us that true art can envoke our visceral emotion and conjure up our souls.  When we encounter art, we feel inspired, fascinated by the lights, colors, and styles. But can we consider that we have these feelings of an art work,  thereby we understand it? If the answer is no, then how to judge whether art have merit or not?

In my opinion, whether art can be understandable to most people is irrelevant to whether art have merit. No matter what art form, such as film, literature, sculpture, or a song, the true value of art is aesthetic feelings provided to people and the deeper and potential things it reflected, such as the  release of artist's emotion or the description of social problems.

Admittedly, many of the classic notable art works are known by most people. And we have to admit the unique impact on our senses and spirits. For example, at the view of Van Gogh's sunflowers, we feel comfortable about the bright and beautiful colors. Or consider when we hear the music of Mozart, we feel reassure through the dainty melody. Besides, with the introductions of an art work on the net or in books, we know the meanings which the artist wants to express. So many famous art works are understand by more and more people.
However, even though the number of people who understand those art works is great, how we know the number reaches the extent that equals to most? Or even though most of us can receive the aesthetic feeling, how we know the feelings equals to understanding? For example, at the glance of Van Gogh's sunflowers, we will feel it beautiful, but we may don't know what Van Gogh wants to manifest. Becasue the true comprehension of art is limited by many factors, as discussed below.

First, people's culture background, or appreciate ability is connected to the understanding of art. As different people get different education, are good at different things, and have different points of views, some art can't be understood by each of us. While a largish number of people receive little education on art, or even have no sense of art, most art are only understood by a small group of people, instead of most. But this phenomenon can't lead us to deny the merit of those art. For example, Picasso's later pictures are surrealism, a theory which is studied by few of us, so it is hard for most of us to understand. But we all acknowledge the tremendous merit of Picasso's works.

Second, some art works are ahead of the times, so that however they valuable, those art works are impossible to be accepted by most of people in contemporary; or in itself, the meanings of art works are dark and unconspicuous, therefore only a few people can understand them. Still to Van Gogh, when he was alive, his pictures can't comprehended by most of people around him, but no longer after his death, artists began to realize the merit of Van Gogh's pictures, and some of them learned to follow the style. So it's unreasonable to judge the value of art by the number of people who understand i

Moreover, the art which most of people understand and like might lack merit, so we can't conclude that most of people can understand an art work, so the art work definitely has merit. Nowdays most of us like to watch bubble films, whose story developing in the film iseasy to be understood, and no deeper meanings need to think about. However, such films can't be regarded to have merit, even not be viewed as art. If art aims to please most of people and become superficial, art will die.

In sum, if art is easy to understand, more people will appreciate it, and it is easier for us to see the merit of it as soon as possible. But there's no connections between the value of art and the number of people who can understand art. Art's merit is only judged by the aesthetic aspect and profoundity.

springhhUID: 2371664

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 142->634         TIME: 00:45:00 +1:44=2:29         DATE: 2008-7-24 10:16:09

Common sense tells us that true art can envoke(evoke) our visceral emotion(这个翻译过来貌似是内脏情感，用inner emotion就可以了) and conjure up our souls.  When we encounter art, we feel inspired, fascinated by the lights, colors, and styles. But can we consider that we have these feelings of an art work,  thereby we understand it? If the answer is no, then how to judge whether art have(has) merit or not?

In my opinion, whether art can be understandable to most people is irrelevant to whether art have merit. No matter what art form(有这种说法吗？no matter which kinds of art forms:), such as film, literature, sculpture, or a song, the true value of art is aesthetic feelings provided to people and the deeper and potential things it reflected, such as the  release of artist's emotion or the description of social problems.(这段写的有些失败，issue重在论证，提出观点后要用论据把论证过程充分展开，而且是正文第一段)

Admittedly, many of the classic notable art works are known by most people. And we have to admit the unique impact on our senses and spirits. For example, at the view of Van Gogh's sunflowers, we feel comfortable about the bright and beautiful colors（这一段可以论证观点吗？梵高的是抽象话，而且很多有他的内在情感在里面，不能因为说你也看到了光线的刻画就理解了该作品）. Or consider when we hear the music of Mozart, we feel reassure through the dainty melody. Besides, with the introductions of an art work on the net or in books, we know the meanings which the artist wants to express. So many famous art works are understand by more and more people. (这一段举例的话最好不要用以前那些大艺术家的作品，可以举些现代的，比如Forrest Gump, Titanic之类的)
However, even though the number of people who understand those art works is great（用tremendous可能更好些）, how we know the number reaches the extent that equals to most?（没明白是啥意思，英文估计不是这样表达的，也许是我水平挫，如果不是的话你还要好好注意一下语言表达） Or even though most of us can receive the aesthetic feeling, how we know the feelings equals to understanding? For example, at the glance of Van Gogh's sunflowers, we will feel it beautiful, but we may don't know what Van Gogh wants to manifest. Becasue the true comprehension of art is limited by many factors, as discussed below.(这个例子不是和上一段矛盾了吗？)

First, people's culture background, or appreciate ability is connected to the understanding of art. As different people get different education, are good at different things, and have different points of views, some art can't be understood by each of us. While a largish number of people receive little education on art, or even have no sense of art, most art are only understood by a small group of people, instead of most. But this phenomenon can't lead us to deny the merit of those art. For example, Picasso's later pictures are surrealism, a theory which is studied by few of us, so it is hard for most of us to understand. But we all acknowledge the tremendous merit of Picasso's works.

Second, some art works are ahead of the times, so that however they valuable, those art works are impossible to be accepted by most of people in contemporary; or in itself, the meanings of art works are dark and unconspicuous, therefore only a few people can understand them. Still to Van Gogh, when he was alive, his pictures can't comprehended by most of people around him, but no longer after his death, artists began to realize the merit of Van Gogh's pictures, and some of them learned to follow the style. So it's unreasonable to judge the value of art by the number of people who understand i

Moreover, the art which most of people understand and like might lack merit, so we can't conclude that most of people can understand an art work, so the art work definitely has merit. Nowdays most of us like to watch bubble films, whose story developing in the film iseasy to be understood, and no deeper meanings need to think about. However, such films can't be regarded to have merit, even not be viewed as art. If art aims to please most of people and become superficial, art will die.

In sum, if art is easy to understand, more people will appreciate it, and it is easier for us to see the merit of it as soon as possible. But there's no connections between the value of art and the number of people who can understand art. Art's merit is only judged by the aesthetic aspect and profoundity.
下面几段大体看了一下，可以论证一些观点，不过总体上感觉提纲有点乱，而且语言还要再斟酌一下。
下面是我刚写的一篇issue，有时间去看一下吧，欢迎狠批
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-861526-1-1.html

jinliyun123UID: 2306368

issue 我用的资料是外研社的issue5.5，我的提纲基本都是开篇让步，进而不断申明自己的观点，结尾收。

可是和大家的习作风格似乎很不一样，我也不知道这样好不好。
为了方便大家看懂我的思路，我附上草提纲，因为写文章的时候，按着自己思路，一路走下去，貌似论证时，顺序不完全一样，但变化不大
s:艺术的价值在于内涵和美感，并不是由能理解的人的数量而定
正：好的经典的作品通常能引起人的共鸣，甚至广为人知。例子，铺陈。。。
反：第一，大部分人喜欢的未必是经典。很多只是一阵流行风，过了就没了。泡沫剧Bubble film
    第二，艺术内涵的鉴赏受很多条件限制。人们文化层次，作品反映的精神超越时代,作者表达思想很隐讳，难懂。很多 牛X的艺术开始不出名
    三，一旦为了观众人多人少为目标，而不是探求艺术真谛，那么 艺术已不是艺术。
合：艺术表达最好要通俗易懂，但是通俗易懂并不是评判条件，必要补充分。

candyrealmeUID: 2368154

外观给人感觉不太好，怎么分了那么多段？大忌哦！
开头不要用提问，这样会让评分人摸不着头脑，直接给TS

jinliyun123UID: 2306368

貌似，issue5.5说段落不要太长，长短错落，犹如国画的白描，怎么办

jinliyun123UID: 2306368

重新改过了，一些例子不能很好论证的都换了，我一二段是主旨段，三让步加过渡，四五一个意群段，六一个意群段，七总结。
望大家帮忙改改阿。。。。

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 142->634         TIME: 00:45:00 +1:44=2:29         DATE: 2008-7-24 10:16:09

Common sense tells us that true art can evoke our inner emotion and conjure up our souls.  When we encounter art, we feel inspired, fascinated by the lights, colors, and styles. But can we consider that we have these feelings of an art work,  thereby we understand it? If the answer is no, then how to judge whether art has merit or not?

In my opinion, whether art can be understandable to most people is irrelevant to whether art have merit. No matter what art form, such as film, literature, sculpture, or a song, the true value of art is aesthetic feelings provided to people and the deeper and potential things it reflected, such as the  release of artist's emotion or the description of social problems.
Admittedly, many of the classic notable art works are known by most people. And we have to admit the unique impact on our senses and spirits. For example, at the view of Van Gogh's sunflowers, we feel comfortable about the bright and beautiful colors. Or consider when we hear the music of Mozart, we feel reassure through the dainty melody. Besides, with the introductions of an art work on the net or in books, we know the meanings which the artist wants to express. So many famous art works are understand by more and more people.

However, even though the number of people who understand those art works is great, they can't stand for the majority of the population. Or even though most of us can receive the aesthetic feeling trough eye or ear, few of us can understand hidden nuances and subtexts. For example, the song "My heart will go on", the theme of film "Titanic", was a hug hit in China. Although many of the Chinese didn't understand a word of the song, they are fascinated. And we can't assert that they understood the song. Beacause the true comprehension of art is limited by many factors, as discussed below.

First, people's culture background, or appreciate ability is connected to the understanding of art. As different people get different education, are good at different things, and have different points of views, some art can't be understood by each of us. While a largish number of people receive little education on art, or even have no sense of art, most art are only understood by a small group of people, instead of most. But this phenomenon can't lead us to deny the merit of those art. For example, Picasso's later pictures are surrealism, a theory which is studied by few of us, so it is hard for most of us to understand. But we all acknowledge the tremendous merit of Picasso's works.

Second, some art works are ahead of the times, so that however they valuable, those art works are impossible to be accepted by most of people in contemporary; or in itself, the meanings of art works are dark and unconspicuous, therefore only a few people can understand them. Still to Van Gogh, when he was alive, his pictures can't comprehended by most of people around him, but no longer after his death, artists began to realize the merit of Van Gogh's pictures, and some of them learned to follow the style. So it's unreasonable to judge the value of art by the number of people who understand it

Another misleading assertion I want to argue is that the art which most of people understand and like might lack merit, so we can't conclude that because most of people can understand an art work, the art work definitely has merit. Nowadays most of us like to listen pop music, most of which is easy to be understood, and of which no deeper meanings need to think about. However, many pop songs have been forgotten as time goes on. Such music can't be regarded to have merit, even not be viewed as art. If art aims to please most of people and become superficial, art will die.

In sum, if art is easy to understand, more people will appreciate it, and it is easier for us to see the merit of it as soon as possible. But there's no connections between the value of art and the number of people who can understand art. Art's merit is only judged by the aesthetic aspect and profoundity.