Issue144 永不言弃第十九次作业 by stgzhao 7#

stgzhaoUID: 2583165

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: 660          TIME: 00:41:55          DATE: 2009-2-25 20:09:41

Artist or critic, which one is more significant for a masterwork of lasting value? This issue is more like the well-known philosophy paradox that whether eggs or chicks come first. In my opinion, both artists and critics have import for human's artistic world since the former one originally create art works while the last one guide people to appreciate them. Cooperation of the two gives society something of lasting value - masterpieces.
Since artists are people who ultimately create those artistic works, it is consequently that people are easily thinking that artists are more important than critics of their contribution to art. It is the case in a large extent that without critic masterpieces in art will occur as before. Artists create art works despite of whether there are appreciators. It is like a stone on the mountain, it exists regardless of whether people discover it. No one can deny the crucial role of the artists in the creation of the artistic works. Their works have been achieved through a long time efforts and a painstaking planning, let along thousands of hours' training before.
Ostensibly, artists are the only important factor in the process of artistic creation. However, one can never ignore the great contribution that critics have made to the improvement of art. It is the critic that discovers the pulchritude of artistic works. It is the critic that lead people to learn to appreciate artistic works and, it is the critic that record great artists and artistic works into history. As an old Chinese saying goes, there are always swift horses while the talent scouts are not. Even though admitting the fact that no matter critic exists or not, artistic works remain the same, the attainment of critics is indelible and irreplaceable.
One of the most important attainments of critics is that they help ordinary people get the ability of appreciating artistic works. To take myself as an example, being a college student majoring in natural science, I have little capability (of course I do have) in appreciating art - paintings, music, novels and so forth. Reading a guide book by critics will certainly help a lot in understanding those abstract artistic works. Critics enlighten people of their inspiration of enjoying artistic work so that real masterpieces can be understood and handed down from generation to generation.
Nevertheless, critics may cumber the development of art sometimes and hence cause some potential masters of arts to be buried with the elapsing of time. We do know that artist is someone whose thought goes far ahead of ordinaries, which may lead to a backward of the critics. False remarks come out as such cases happen and artists and their works are being misunderstood. A striking example is the fall of the great master of impressionism - suicide of Vincent Van Gogh, the death of whom caused mainly because people of that age could not find value in his paintings. However, he and his works are vindicated to be of great value after his death as the critics finally realized how silly they had been. What a tragedy that people get a series of masterpieces after losing the master. This should never happen because critics should always keep the pace with artists.
Last but not least, the argument that who gives society something of lasting value - artist or critic, is basically a problem of existence and cognition. Different people may hold different positions to this problem. However, no matter which one values more, to have a masterpiece lasting long is a hard work which calls the cooperation of both artists' creation and critic's understandings.
In sum, it is hard to say whether the artist or the critic contributes more to the art of our society. But it is certainly that without either of them there will not be anything of lasting value. Artists' hardworking makes people having something to value, however, critic's work gives people the ability to appreciate them.

MYcoltingUID: 2563080

Artist or critic, which one is more significant for a masterwork of lasting value?  This issue is more like the well-known philosophy paradox that whether eggs or chicks come first.  In my opinion, both artists and critics  are import to   human's artistic world since the former one originally create art works while the latter one guide people to appreciate them. Cooperation of the two gives society something of lasting value - masterpieces.

Since artists are people who ultimately create those artistic works, it is consequently that people are easily thinking that artists are more important than critics of their contribution to art. It is the case in a large extent that without critic masterpieces in art will occur as before. Artists create art works despite of whether there are appreciators. It is like a stone on the mountain, it exists regardless of whether people discover it. No one can deny the crucial role of the artists in the creation of the artistic works. Their works have been achieved through a long time efforts and a painstaking planning, let along thousands of hours' training before.

Ostensibly红宝词汇了   , artists are the only important factor in the process of artistic creation. However, one can never ignore the great contribution that critics have made to the improvement of art. It is the critic that discovers the  pulchritude of artistic works. It is the critic that lead people to learn to appreciate artistic works and, it is the critic that record great artists and artistic works into history.  排比 As an old Chinese saying goes, there are always swift horses while the talent scouts are not. Even though admitting the fact that no matter critic exists or not, artistic works remain the same, the attainment of critics is indelible and irreplaceable.

One of the most important attainments of critics is that they help ordinary people get the ability of appreciating artistic works. To take myself as an example, being a college student majoring in natural science, I have little capability (of course I do have) in appreciating art - paintings, music, novels and so forth. Reading a guide book by critics will certainly help a lot in understanding those abstract artistic works. Critics enlighten people of their inspiration of enjoying artistic work so that real masterpieces can be understood and handed down from generation to generation.

Nevertheless, critics may cumber the development of art sometimes and hence cause some potential masters of arts to be buried with the elapsing of time. We do know that artist is someone whose thought goes far ahead of ordinaries, which may lead to a backward of the critics. False remarks come out as such cases happen and artists and their works are being misunderstood. A striking example is the fall of the great master of impressionism - suicide of Vincent Van Gogh, the death of whom caused mainly because people of that age could not find value in his paintings. However, he and his works are vindicated to be of great value after his death as the critics finally realized how silly they had been. What a tragedy that people get a series of masterpieces after losing the master. This should never happen because critics should always keep the pace with artists. 这个例子我感觉不是很恰当 主题句说的是品论家 例子也应该强调品论家造成的而不是people 而后面却说品论家又发现  而且我感觉这段有些削弱你的立场 我对这种论证方法一直不是很放心

Last but not least, the argument that who gives society something of lasting value - artist or critic, is basically a problem of existence and cognition. Different people may hold different positions to this problem. However, no matter which one values more, to have a masterpiece lasting long is a hard work which calls the cooperation of both artists' creation and critic's understandings.

In sum, it is hard to say whether the artist or the critic contributes more to the art of our society. But it is certainly that without either of them there will not be anything of lasting value. Artists' hardworking makes people having something to value, however, critic's work gives people the ability to appreciate them.