0910AW 同主题写作第四期 ISSUE144 by leopard2009

leopard2009UID: 2596872

1441
"It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."1
*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc

The artist and the critic are like the strange twins in the art kingdom--they seem independent but actually intertwined. Due to the complicated relationship between them, people are always wondering who gives society something of lasting value. Indeed, It is not a straightforward question. But after categorizing the social value of art into the following two types--the spiritual value and the commercial value, I generally agree that it is the artist who gives society something of lasting spiritual value, and that both the artist and the critic gives something of lasting commercial one.

Broadly speaking, we can classify the social value of art into the spiritual value--or in other worlds the aesthetic value, and the commercial value. And it would be obvious for us to recognize the spiritual value of art--the intrinsic value of art, since, I believe, any of us has the experiences in being motivated by a film, or being touched by a novel, or being comforted by a piece of beautiful rhythm, or being amazed by a fabulous painting. But what is the commercial value of art--the external value of art? If you look at the current booming art market, you will know it. In the modern world, art can be thought as a kind of investment, which means that they may bring back 'interests' in the forms of increased exchange price in the future. That is the commercial value of art.

In terms of the spiritual value of art, few people disagree that it is the artist, rather than the critic, who provides it. As we know, the artists are the specific group of people who virtually write novels, direct films, compose music, draw paintings and etc.. They are usually more sensitive to the surroundings around them, and have the great endowed gifts to extract the spiritual value from nature or society and then express these value in an artistic way. In this sense, they are truly the producers of the spiritual value in society. Whereas the critic, according to the definition, is a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc. The critics don't directly participate in the process of art production. In most cases, they just analyze and evaluate certain artistic works after its completion by the artists. They don't take part in the production of the spiritual value in art and therefore we cannot claim the lasting spiritual value of art is given by them. Take Milan Kundera as an example. Milan Kundera tried to explore the truth of human beings' life in his masterpiece--the unbearable lightness of being. Even though this novel was acclaimed by the critics, we, as a reader, are fascinated and enlightened to contemplate the essence of our life by Milan Kundera's insightful story, not by the comments of the critics. Hence it is Milan Kundera, not his critics, gives society the insights to introspect the essence of life and sweeps out people's illusion about the recurrence of life.

In terms of the commercial value of art, however, both the artist and the critic contribute to providing it. Firstly, common sense tells us that the aesthetic value of art partially determines its money one. After all, if some works have almost no spiritual value, their commercial value would also be very subtle. In the commercial sense, we may think the art works as the products in the market, and the spiritual value of these arts is these products' most important feature. So if the 'feature' is bad, the 'quality' would be poor, and then the price, its commercial value,  tends to be low. And because it is the artist who gives the spiritual value as we discussed above, we may safely conclude that the artist partly provides society the commercial value of art. Secondly, the critic, as the opinion leader in the market, also increase the commercial value of art. The art market, similar to any other ones, is an imperfect market, which means that not all art buyers have the enough expertise or information to discern the exact value of art. The critics therefore come up to fill in this gap. They apply their knowledge and information to tell whether a novel is worth reading, or whether a movie is well produced and etc.. And finally because most art buyers follow their comments to invest in art,  the critics virtually add to the money value of art by reducing buyers' searching and transaction cost.

To sum up, the artist truly gives society something of lasting spiritual and commercial value. However, due to the important function of the critic as the opinion leader in the imperfect art market, we should not ignore their role in increasing the commercial value of art.

dodoluluUID: 2641270

The artist and the critic are like the strange twins in the art kingdom--they seem independent but actually intertwined. Due to the complicated relationship between them, people are always wondering who gives society something of lasting value. Indeed, It is not a straightforward question. But after categorizing the social value这个地方还是该抠抠字眼吧，lasting value和society value还是有差别的of art into the following two types--the spiritual value and the commercial value, I generally agree that it is the artist who gives society something of lasting spiritual value, and that both the artist and the critic gives something of lasting commercial one.
Broadly speaking, we can classify the social value of art into the spiritual value--or in other worlds the aesthetic value, and the commercial value. And it would be obvious for us to recognize the spiritual value of art--the intrinsic value of art, since, I believe, any of us has the experiences in being motivated by a film, or being touched by a novel, or being comforted by a piece of beautiful rhythm, or being amazed by a fabulous painting朗朗上口. But what is the commercial value of art--the external value of art? If you look at the current booming art market, you will know it. In the modern world, art can be thought as a kind of investment, which means that they may bring back 'interests' in the forms of increased exchange price in the future. That is the commercial value of art.
In terms of the spiritual value of art, few people disagree that it is the artist, rather than the critic, who provides it. As we know, the artists are the specific group of people who virtually write novels, direct films, compose music, draw paintings and etc.. They are usually more sensitive to the surroundings around them, and have the great endowed gifts to extract the spiritual value from nature or society and then express these value in an artistic way. In this sense, they are truly the producers of the spiritual value in society. Whereas the critic, according to the definition, is a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc. The critics don't directly participate in the process of art production. In most cases, they just analyze and evaluate certain artistic works after its completion by the artists. They don't take part in the production of the spiritual value in art and therefore we cannot claim the lasting spiritual value of art is given by them. Take Milan Kundera as an example. Milan Kundera tried to explore the truth of human beings' life in his masterpiece--the unbearable lightness of being出版物要加引号. Even though this novel was acclaimed by the critics, we, as a reader, are fascinated and enlightened to contemplate the essence of our life by Milan Kundera's insightful story, not by the comments of the critics. Hence it is Milan Kundera, not his critics, gives society the insights to introspect the essence of life and sweeps out people's illusion about the recurrence of life.
In terms of the commercial value of art, however, both the artist and the critic contribute to providing it. Firstly, common sense tells us that the aesthetic value of art partially determines its money one直接由price更好点. After all, if some works have almost no spiritual value, their commercial value would also be very subtle. In the commercial sense, we may think the art works as the products in the market, and the spiritual value of these arts is these products' most important feature. So if the 'feature' is bad, the 'quality' would be poor, and then the price, its commercial value,  tends to be low. And because it is the artist who gives the spiritual value as we discussed above, we may safely conclude that the artist partly provides society the commercial value of art. Secondly, the critic, as the opinion leader in the market, also increase the commercial value of art. The art market, similar to any other ones, is an imperfect market, which means that not all art buyers have the enough expertise or information to discern the exact value of art. The critics therefore come up to fill in this gap. They apply their knowledge and information to tell whether a novel is worth reading, or whether a movie is well produced and etc.. And finally because most art buyers follow their comments to invest in art,  the critics virtually add to the money value of art by reducing buyers' searching and transaction cost.
To sum up, the artist truly gives society something of lasting spiritual and commercial value. However, due to the important function of the critic as the opinion leader in the imperfect art market, we should not ignore their role in increasing the commercial value of art.
文章的语言还是一如既往的让我艳羡不已。那些生动而毫不生硬的表达，确实不是一时半会能学到家的。把lasting value定义spiritual value and commercial value，很有启发，文章的论证也是恰到好处，恩很不错
加油！

chill_lyUID: 2640200

The artist and the critic are like the strange twins in the art kingdom--they seem independent but actually intertwined. Due to the complicated relationship between them, people are always wondering who gives society something of lasting value. Indeed, It is not a straightforward question. But after categorizing the social value of art into the following two types--the spiritual value and the commercial value, I generally agree that it is the artist who gives society something of lasting spiritual value, and that both the artist and the critic gives something of lasting commercial one.

Broadly speaking, we can classify the social value of art into the spiritual value--or in other worlds the aesthetic value, and the commercial value. And it would be obvious for us to recognize the spiritual value of art--the intrinsic value of art, since, I believe, any of us has the experiences in being motivated by a film, or being touched by a novel, or being comforted by a piece of beautiful rhythm, or being amazed by a fabulous painting.(排比得不错,用词也很合理,就是or保留最后一个就行了,后面的去掉being也会让句子更简洁) But what is the commercial value of art--the external value of art? If you look at the current booming art market, you will know it. In the modern world, art can be thought as a kind of investment, which means that they may bring back 'interests' in the forms of increased exchange price in the future. That is the commercial value of art.

In terms of the spiritual value of art, few people disagree that it is the artist, rather than the critic, who provides it. As we know, the artists are the specific group of people who virtually write novels, direct films, compose music, draw paintings and etc.. They are usually more sensitive to the surroundings around them, and have the great endowed gifts to extract the spiritual value from nature or society and then express these value in an artistic way. In this sense, they are truly the producers of the spiritual value in society. Whereas the critic, according to the definition, is a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc. The critics don't directly participate in the process of art production. In most cases, they just analyze and evaluate certain artistic works after its completion by the artists. They don't take part in the production of the spiritual value in art and therefore we cannot claim the lasting spiritual value of art is given by them. Take Milan Kundera as an example. Milan Kundera tried to explore the truth of human beings' life in his masterpiece--"the unbearable lightness of being". Even though this novel was acclaimed by the critics, we, as readers, are fascinated and enlightened to contemplate the essence of our life by Milan Kundera's insightful story, not by the comments of the critics. Hence it is Milan Kundera, not his critics, gives society the insights to introspect the essence of life and sweeps out people's illusion about the recurrence of life.

In terms of the commercial value of art, however, both the artist and the critic contribute to providing it. Firstly, common sense tells us that the aesthetic value of art partially determines its money one(这个写法....). After all, if some works have almost no spiritual value, their commercial value would also be very subtle. In the commercial sense, we may think the art works as the products in the market, and the spiritual value of these arts is these products' most important feature. So if the 'feature' is bad, the 'quality' would be poor, and then the price, its commercial value,  tends to be low. And because it is the artist who gives the spiritual value as we discussed above, we may safely conclude that the artist partly provides society the commercial value of art. Secondly, the critic, as the opinion leader in the market, also increases the commercial value of art. The art market, similar to any other ones, is an imperfect market, which means that not all art buyers have the enough expertise or information to discern the exact value of art. The critics therefore come up to fill in this gap. They apply their knowledge and information to tell whether a novel is worth reading, or whether a movie is well produced and etc.. And finally because most art buyers follow their comments to invest in art,  the critics virtually add to the money value of art by reducing buyers' searching and transaction cost.

To sum up, the artist truly gives society something of lasting spiritual and commercial value. However, due to the important function of the critic as the opinion leader in the imperfect art market, we should not ignore their role in increasing the commercial value of art.

优点我就不说了,前面的同学都说了
不足嘛,怎么说呢,也没什么,感觉把critics的作用过于弱化了,就是估价的,特别是你的第三点就是这个意思,当然这可能和你的观点有关,这一点可能会有异议
另外相对开头和正文,结尾略显薄弱
其他也没什么了
仰目一下700+的字数,叫我去哪憋这么多字出来啊