0910AW 同主题写作第二期 ISSUE144 by Ga-ROW Sleepingboy

Neptune2010UID: 2626044

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.
DATE: 2009/5/25 13:15:12

The speaker's assertion that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value has merits, since the artist is the original creator of various valuable aesthetic inspiration and ideas. Nevertheless, the critic's contribution, though in terms of pure aesthetic evaluation is quite limited, exerts far-reaching influence on society for assessing artists’ social and humanity ideas.

Needless to say, the artist creates innovative aesthetic styles, themes and passionate inspirations. In addition, they express their deep concerns on both society and humanity, which generate lasting impacts. Consider the Renaissance period. Those contemporary artists painted Saint Maria as ordinary women with natural beauty. Sculptors constructed works that strongly lauded human physique. And many other creators started to directly portrait the life of ordinary people. These innovative schools were manifestation of beauty and originality, which people appreciate in all times. More importantly, they reflected the social trend for the beginning of the new era ----- liberation from the confine of deity and feudalism and discovering the worth of human. It is compelling that these artists actively propelled such Renaissance spirits, which served as stepping stone for various social and spiritual forces for later progresses. In short, the artists' contribution to society is immense and positive, both in pure aesthetic and social sense.

In contrast, the critic who evaluates art works, guides us to choice and appreciates, and provides feedback to the artist does not give society as much lasting values as the artist does, especially when he is to assess the artist's aesthetic worth. A critic’ evaluation can not be complete objective. After all, the true aesthetic value of arts is to provide us intuitive and sensational impulses, not reasonable understanding. In this respect, the critic's role as teaching us art works wanes considerably. In addition, history tends to supports the critic's ill-assess on many famous artists’ works, those that have lasting values. Their rejections on Beethoven, Antoni Gaudi and Van Gogh are all apt examples. Even I query whether human has to largely rely on sophisticated knowledge to appreciate art work. After all, the populace may love arts simply for its explicit beauty or uniqueness, not something with sophisticated styles or themes. Thus, the critic's contribution might only serve a minority of society's elite group.

However, arts not only serve to render aesthetic worth, but also social or humanity ideas. In this sense, the critic's efforts can not be overlooked. Since the artist can not explicitly express his ideas and concerns, but only through his artistic technique, it is necessary for the critic to study and reveal them to the world. Returning the above example of Renaissance art, although it is true that Renaissance spirits brought about great social improvements, the good thing that we, as their descendents, learn from such significance is credited to critic's efforts, not the historians or socialists who knew little about arts. They evaluate various works by comprehending the social backgrounds and the artist's personal experience, helping to explain the artist’s ideas. Without their efforts in this realm, we risk totally losing these lasting values.

Moreover, a single art work is independent and personal, and is weak at formulating collective social forces. Yet, the inherent duty of the critic is to research on works of a group of artists who share certain similarities in notions, styles, background and others. By doing so, the critic finds collective ideas from different artists, which assimilate to indicate hidden social values. The researches on the black literature in the American history by the critic well support the case.

In conclusion, artist’s contribution to societal lasting values is generally recognized. Yet the critics’ effort can not be ignored. By the help of them, we can understand the social ideas of artists and the significance of their work outside the pure aesthetic realm. It is the critic who resurrects these vital and lasting values that might otherwise remain unknown and become obsolete eventually.

XOXLOLUID: 2309408

The speaker's assertion that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value has merits,(怎么读起来两个谓语动词） since the artist is the original creator of various valuable aesthetic inspiration and ideas（艺术家创造了inspiration and idea?how?). Nevertheless, the critic's contribution, though in terms of pure aesthetic evaluation is quite limited, exerts far-reaching influence on society for assessing artists’ social and humanity ideas.

Needless to say, the(an) artist creates innovative aesthetic styles, themes and passionate inspirations. In addition, they express their deep concerns on both society and humanity, which generate lasting impacts. Consider the Renaissance period. Those contemporary artists painted Saint Maria as ordinary women with natural beauty. Sculptors constructed works that strongly lauded human physique(good!). And many other creators started to directly portrait the life of ordinary people. These innovative schools were manifestation of beauty and originality, which people appreciate in all times. More importantly, they reflected the social trend for(of) the beginning of the new era ----- liberation from the confine of deity and feudalism and discovering the worth of human. It is compelling that these artists actively propelled such Renaissance spirits, which served as stepping stone for various social and spiritual forces for later progresses. In short, the artists' contribution to society is immense and positive, both in pure aesthetic and social sense.

In contrast, the critic who evaluates art works, guides us to choice(choose) and appreciates(去掉）, and provides feedback to the artist does not give society as much lasting values as the artist does, especially when he is to assess the artist's aesthetic worth. A critic’ evaluation can not be complete（completely) objective. After all, the true aesthetic value of arts is to provide us intuitive and sensational impulses, not reasonable understanding. In this respect, the critic's role as teaching us art works wanes considerably. In addition, history tends to supports the critic's ill-assess on many famous artists’ works, those that have lasting values. Their rejections on Beethoven, Antoni Gaudi and Van Gogh are all apt examples. Even I query whether human has to largely rely on sophisticated knowledge to appreciate art work. After all, the populace may love arts simply for its explicit beauty or uniqueness, not something with sophisticated styles or themes. Thus, the critic's contribution might only serve a minority of society's elite group.

However, arts not only serve to render aesthetic worth, but also social or humanity（humanistic) ideas. In this sense, the critic's efforts can not be overlooked. Since the artist can not explicitly express his ideas and concerns, but only through his artistic technique, it is necessary for the critic to study and reveal them to the world.(since....but......it is necessary.....这个句子的逻辑我绕糊涂了） Returning （to) the above example of Renaissance art, although it is true that Renaissance spirits brought about great social improvements, the good thing that we, as their descendents, learn from such significance is credited to critic's efforts, not the historians or socialists who knew little about arts. They evaluate various works by comprehending the social backgrounds and the artist's personal experience, helping to explain the artist’s ideas. Without their efforts in this realm, we risk totally losing these lasting values.

Moreover, a single art work is independent and personal, and is weak at formulating collective social forces. Yet, the inherent duty of the critic is to research on works of a group of artists who share certain similarities in notions, styles, background and others. (这个观点没想到，很新颖）By doing so, the critic finds collective ideas from different artists, which assimilate to indicate hidden social values. The researches on the black literature in the American history by the critic well support the case.

In conclusion, artist’s contribution to societal lasting values is generally recognized. Yet the critics’ effort can not be ignored. By the help of them, we can understand the social ideas of artists and the significance of their work outside the pure aesthetic realm. It is the critic who resurrects these vital and lasting values that might otherwise remain unknown and become obsolete eventually.
没什么问题，我是鸡蛋里挑骨头。文章结构很清晰，感觉lz很能写。学习啊。

.C.C.UID: 2645494

■语法 ■逻辑 ■整个段落

The speaker's assertion that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value （传说直接引用不好）has merits, since the artist is the original creator of various valuable aesthetic inspiration and ideas. Nevertheless, the critic's contribution, though in terms of pure aesthetic evaluation is quite limited, exerts far-reaching influence on society for assessing artists’ social and humanity ideas.

Needless to say, the artist creates innovative aesthetic styles, themes and passionate inspirations.In addition, they （前面说的是artist，哪来的they?）express their deep concerns on both society and humanity, which generate lasting impacts. Consider the Renaissance period. Those contemporary artists painted Saint Maria as ordinary women with natural beauty. Sculptors constructed works that strongly lauded human physique. And many other creators started to directly portrait the life of ordinary people. (能不能一句话说他们追求真理？)These innovative schools were manifestation of beauty and originality, which people appreciate in all times（我讨厌这个in all times）. More importantly, they reflected the social trend for the beginning of the new era ----- liberation from the confine of deity and feudalism and discovering the worth of human. It is compelling that these artists actively propelled such Renaissance spirits, which served as stepping stone for various social and spiritual forces for later progresses. （我觉得这个例子太长，反而使论证弱了） In short, the artists' contribution to society is immense and positive, both in pure aesthetic and social sense.

In contrast, the critic who evaluates art works, guides us to choice and appreciates, and provides feedback to the artist does not give society as much lasting values as the artist does, especially when he is to assess the artist's aesthetic worth（我觉得貌似和前面那个有点连不起来）. A critic’s evaluation can not be complete objective. After all, the true aesthetic value of arts is to provide us intuitive and sensational impulses, not reasonable understanding. In this respect, the critic's role as teaching us art works wanes considerably. In addition, history tends to supports the critic's ill-assess on many famous artists’ works, those that（those that改成who） have lasting values. Their rejections on Beethoven, Antoni Gaudi and Van Gogh are all apt examples. Even I query whether human has to largely rely on sophisticated knowledge to appreciate art work.（这句话，你这个疑问有点武断？我觉得你前面并没有完全否定critics啊，怎么突然就even i了呢，然后后面那段又开始说要rely on） After all, the populace may love arts simply for its explicit beauty or uniqueness, not something with sophisticated styles or themes. Thus, the critic's contribution might only serve a minority of society's elite group.

However, arts not only serve to render aesthetic worth, but also social or humanity ideas. In this sense, the critic's efforts can not be overlooked. Since the artist can not explicitly express his ideas and concerns, but only through his artistic technique, it is necessary for the critic to study and reveal them to the world. Returning the above example of Renaissance art, although it is true that Renaissance spirits brought about great social improvements, the good thing that we, as their descendents, （good thing, as their descendents,  that we？不然又觉得突兀了）learn from such significance is credited to critic's efforts, not the historians or socialists who knew little about arts. They evaluate various works by comprehending the social backgrounds and the artist's personal experience, helping to explain the artist’s ideas. Without their efforts in this realm, we risk totally losing these lasting values.我有一点点觉得，这段的段首要好好处理下，不然觉得跟上面有点接不上

Moreover, a single art work is independent and personal, and is weak at formulating collective social forces. Yet, the inherent duty of the critic is to research on works of a group of artists who share certain similarities in notions, styles, background and others. By doing so, the critic finds collective ideas from different artists, which assimilate to indicate hidden social values. The researches on the black literature in the American history by the critic well support the case.额？你是没来得及展开么？我觉得怎么突然就没了？

In conclusion, artist’s contribution to societal lasting values is generally recognized. Yet the critics’ effort can not be ignored. By the help of them, we can understand the social ideas of artists and the significance of their work outside the pure aesthetic realm. It is the critic who resurrects these vital and lasting values that might otherwise remain unknown and become obsolete eventually.

唯一的感觉就是单复数……我再也不要改你的i144了……完全看不进去……

Neptune2010UID: 2626044

The speaker's assertion that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value has merits,(怎么读起来两个谓语动词） since the artist is the original creator of various val ...
XOXLOL 发表于 2009-6-13 11:23

谢谢你的批语、、改得比我仔细多了~
说明这篇还需要重写、、、晕``

Neptune2010UID: 2626044

■语法
■逻辑
■整个段落

The speaker's assertion that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value （传说直接引用不好）has merits, since the artist is the origin ...
.C.C. 发表于 2009-6-15 00:58

我看出来了、、那是怎一个痛苦了得、、、幸苦了啊~  勤劳熬夜的小cc~~~