Issue144【六人作文小组】第2周第6次作业

sneakerliuUID: 2481691

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.
WORDS: 649          TIME: 上午 12:45:00          DATE: 2009-1-17

The arts, including music, paintings, sculptures and even videos in the modern age, provide people the method to relieve and experience comforts. Moreover, the arts also enable people with the timing and circumstance to sympathize with the artists and even seek the answers of humanities. According to Adam Smith's theory in his famous book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and I paraphrased, the approval or disapproval to a person depends on whether we sympathize or fail to sympathize with that person's emotions. It is also true to the appreciation of arts. And the critics could hardly decide people's sympathy but enlighten their minds.

When it comes to Beethoven's Symphony No.9, I can always feel faithful to life though how thorny it could be. The music gives me the confidence that nothing could stop my mind as if I am the God. And his anther masterpiece sympathy No.8 explains how powerless an individual is at the beginning and how powerful one could be at the coda. It is exactly the time that Beethoven starts the loss of hearing that he created it. It seems that I do sympathize with him while listening, and I start to think about the faith as one of the humanities. All those feelings are not assisted by any critics but aroused from my mind. Albeit different people could experience different feelings or humanities from the same symphony, as there is no criterion of right and wrong to the interpretation of art, people should be free to communicate with their heart via the arts. It is another creative work based on the creative arts, which I believe, is the external right of one to seek for the humanities and should not be affected by the critics' words.

When it comes to the paintings, the criteria of interpretation could be more ambiguous. The Starry Night of Vincent Van Gogh enables people to experience opposite feelings. Some assert they feel peaceful and memorize the childhood from the colors and the peaceful lonely town, others argue the painting enlightened them with death since the dark structure on the left is so terrible. The paradox could be explained by the critics by introducing Van Gogh's then situation or thoughts from a professional perspectives. But why should we do so? Van Gogh may have not thought that much when he was drawing that painting but simply follow his feeling and try to communicate with his mind or humanities. Why could we led everybody else not do the same thing while appreciate his fantasy?

Admittedly, the critics do have their reasons of existing. John Ransom argue the crtics, in his essay ‘Critism.Inc’, and I paraphrased, should be always objective. Thus, their critical essays should not be of any subjective ideas instead of enlightening the public. As Ann Sexton's poem 'The Starry Night' and Don McLean’s song 'Vincent' interpreted the starry night in their minds. Those works are inspired by the painting, and so do the critics' opinions. Thus, from my perspective of view, the critics cannot be truly objective as they reckon. Even so, their jobs do have values as presenting alternative opinions to certain arts. The public can gain from their critical works to understand different perspectives of music or painting, but this can only be done after the public's own interpretation, otherwise will hurt their imaginations and the right of gain from thinking via arts.

In sum, the arts enables we to dig something that is external and beyond the external papers or scales. The humanities accompany with our sympathy with the artists value more than the relief we can achieve. While the process of sympathy or seeking of humanities is so independent and of no criteria, no one has the right to interrupt by their points of view, even the critics. In this regard, the arts are truly valued if we are the only critic to our own mind.


[ 本帖最后由 sneakerliu 于 2009-1-17 23:03 编辑 ]

corpuscleUID: 2503411

对于艺术类的题目，我觉得很多人都不怎么了解，这也是为什么大家都对艺术题目犯难的原因吧
改这个题目之前，我提几个个人观点，希望能抛砖引玉:rolleyes:
艺术品无疑是艺术家创作的，一个有价值的艺术品要具备两个条件：独创性和唯一性，不仅要求艺术家的高超艺术水平，更重要的是需要艺术家创作艺术品的时候有free的思想。艺术通常是超前的，不能完全受当时的条条框框限制。艺术品之所以珍贵，并不仅仅是美感的需求，更重要的是艺术品里面所表达的本质
批评家的特征是优选艺术品，从广大的艺术品挑选优秀的杰作，然后推广给大众。因为批评家的评判标准是当代的，这就和艺术家的前卫思想冲突，而且批评家的条条框框和艺术家的free思想也是冲突的。所以，这就容易导致两个结果：发展艺术和阻碍艺术。什么时候能发展艺术呢？第一个前提要批评家有足够的艺术欣赏功底，这个不难理解；第二个前提批评家有挖掘艺术品的能力，这就要求他们有前瞻性，评判艺术品不能完全按照当代的条条框框；第三个前提批评家不受任何第三方约束，这个第三方包括政府也包括民众，不能为了迎合政府或民众的口味挑选艺术品
民众的特点是对艺术品的理解很肤浅的那一类，对艺术的理解相对有限，需要批评家去帮助分析，但民众是艺术品是否能够实现持久价值的基础，如果不能被民众接受，那艺术品也很难实现其价值
一个艺术品从创作、推广、接受，实现其持久价值，需要三方共同参与，而三方又通常是相互制约相互矛盾的，这也就是这类题目的复杂所在

sneakerliuUID: 2481691

艺术的确应该发人深思，但其深思的内容往往会因人而异，批评家却限制了人们自由深思的权利，他们把自己对艺术的见解加在了艺术之上，即使对，也不会全面。
上面是我的想法，不成熟，艺术题材没有写过，这篇是限时的，感觉不是很好，批的猛烈些吧
小小鸟的见解很广，很多我没有想到，谢谢

corpuscleUID: 2503411

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

*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 649          TIME: 上午 12:45:00          DATE: 2009-1-17
写这个题目之前需要对几个关键词梳理一下，论证的时候该限定条件，该分类的时候分类
Give: 这个词怎么理解？究竟是艺术家的创作，还是批评家的推广？对这个词的理解不同，立场肯定也不一样
Society: 这个题目虽然只说了艺术家和批评家，但这个society决定了艺术品实现价值需要民众的参与
Lasting value：这个是什么概念？艺术品一旦创造出来，其价值就是固定的。Lasting value究竟是按艺术品本身的价值还是按人们评判的价值算？如果按人们的评判价值算，那就需要批评家和民众共同参与了。如果艺术品不能被推广，不能被接受，也很难实现其价值


The arts, including music, paintings, sculptures and even videos in the modern age, provide people the method to relieve and experience comforts（这两个观点是一样的，艺术品还有教育功能啊，追求真理追求爱）. Moreover, the arts also enable people with the timing and circumstance to sympathize with the artists and even seek the answers of humanities. According to Adam Smith's theory in his famous book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and I paraphrased（这句话表达的不好）,the approval or disapproval to a person depends on whether we sympathize or fail to sympathize with that person's emotions. It is also true to the appreciation of arts（学过Argument的都知道，适用A的不一定适用B，你还不如不说，直接论证）. And the critics could hardly decide people's sympathy but enlighten their minds.这一段篇幅过多的说艺术，而文章论证的主角是艺术家和批评家，论证重点有点偏
When it comes to Beethoven's Symphony No.9, I can always feel faithful to life though how thorny it could be. The music gives me the confidence that nothing could stop my mind as if I am the God（艺术品具体如何影响你的？不能泛泛而谈啊，是音乐的旋律还是艺术表达的内容？）. And his anther masterpiece sympathy No.8 explains how powerless an individual is at the beginning and how powerful one could be at the coda. It is exactly the time that Beethoven starts the loss of hearing that he created it. It seems that I do sympathize with him while listening, and I start to think about the faith as one of the humanities（这个是贝多芬的事迹，不是艺术家通过艺术品表达的内容对你的影响）. All those feelings are not assisted by any critics but aroused from my mind. Albeit different people could experience different feelings or humanities from the same symphony, as there is no criterion（其实批评家是有评判标准的，你前面说的对，每个人的感觉、理解是不一样的，对艺术品的认可也是不同的。后面说的也对，艺术品来自艺术家的创作，批评家没有参与艺术创作。从这里看，你是完全否定批评家的作用了） of right and wrong to the interpretation of art, people should be free to communicate with their heart via the arts. It is another creative work based on the creative arts, which I believe, is the external right of one to seek for the humanities and should not be affected by the critics' words.

When it comes to the paintings（第一句的表达方式和上段重复了，换一种表达方式）, the criteria of interpretation could be more ambiguous. The Starry Night of Vincent Van Gogh enables people to experience opposite feelings. Some assert they feel peaceful and memorize the childhood from the colors and the peaceful lonely town, others argue the painting enlightened them with death since the dark structure on the left is so terrible. The paradox could be explained by the critics by introducing Van Gogh's then situation or thoughts from a professional perspectives（？）. But why should we do so? Van Gogh may have not thought that much when he was drawing that painting but simply follow his feeling and try to communicate with his mind or humanities. Why could we led everybody else not do the same thing while appreciate his fantasy? 这一段你从批判标准模糊的角度否定批评家，其实梵高这个例子并不是批评家对艺术品的理解不同，而是当时梵高的艺术手法不被人们接受。你提了两个问题，为什么没有回答呢？难道让读者自己去思考？

Admittedly, the critics do have their reasons of existing. John Ransom argue the crtics, in his essay ‘Critism.Inc’, and I paraphrased, should be always objective.你这段说的是批评家有存在的理由，应该论证为什么存在？而不是批评家应该怎么做 Thus, their critical essays should not be of any subjective ideas instead of enlightening the public（启发大众就不能客观了？）. As Ann Sexton's poem 'The Starry Night' and Don McLean’s song 'Vincent' interpreted the starry night in their minds. Those works are inspired by the painting, and so do the critics' opinions这个例子我没看懂，可能是我不了解这个素材的原因吧. Thus, from my perspective of view, the critics cannot be truly objective as they reckon. Even so, their jobs do have values as presenting alternative opinions to certain arts. The public can gain from their critical works to understand different perspectives of music or painting, but this can only be done after the public's own interpretation, otherwise will hurt their imaginations and the right of gain from thinking via arts.

In sum, the arts enables we to dig something that is external and beyond the external papers or scales. The humanities accompany with our sympathy with the artists value more than the relief we can achieve. While the process of sympathy or seeking of humanities is so independent and of no criteria, no one has the right to interrupt by their points of view, even the critics. In this regard, the arts are truly valued if we are the only critic to our own mind.
你的文章是否定批评家，虽然让步一下，但又驳论这个让步。所以，我觉得你的文章更适合《批评家是否应该存在》这个题目。而且文章的关键词-- lasting value你没有写出来，究竟是谁创造永恒价值的艺术品也没有表达出来。

corpuscleUID: 2503411

批评家不应该是限制人们思考的权利，也不应该有主观的判定，要做到这两点确实不容易，可能只有出色的批评家做的到
批评家的主要工作是引导人们对艺术的思考，人们对艺术的欣赏水平通常是有限的
历史上还是有不少批评家推动艺术发展的

luciaylUID: 2580602

lasting value 是时间维度上的长久，当是每个时代的批评家都会受到当下的影响而做出评判。
艺术家创作艺术作品更多是出于一时灵感，对长久价值没法预测。
当一件艺术品能被几代人欣赏，潜移默化中影响着历史甚至人类进化，只要他有观众或听众，不管如何评判，这都能称为lasting value吧。

corpuscleUID: 2503411

补充一点：lasting value在这里没有具体的限定，可以理解为社会价值，也可以理解为艺术品自身价值，写的时候根据需要加个限定就可以了
谈一谈我个人对艺术品永恒价值的理解：
经典艺术作品需要两个属性：独一性、创造性，这是被普遍认可的观点
如果按社会价值理解，具有永恒价值的作品（这里限定下，只讨论具有上面两个属性的作品）就需要被社会接受，实现其价值。有一些作品刚出来就被社会认可，这个算实现了社会价值；有一些作品出来N年之后才被社会接受，比如梵高的作品，布朗的作品，这个也算实现了社会价值；也有一些作品，可能到现在还没有实现其社会价值，也可能永远的被埋没。因此，对于最后一个可能，批评家的作用尤其重要
如果按自身价值理解，那没什么可说的，具有这两个属性的作品都可以算具备永恒的价值，不需要批评家的参与，也不需要民众的认可