issue114 【加州阳光】第6次作业 你拍一！我拍一！

benniUID: 2166321

~在此谢过帮我提高的各路英雄好汉~

题目：ISSUE144 (06年频率：136)

"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.


提纲：

1、评论家有用。促进大众审美的形成；帮助文化消费者筛选好的作品；给艺术家提出建设性的意见。
2、然而，以上作用都不算是长久的价值。大众审美日新月异；评论家认为不好的未必不受欢迎；艺术创作靠的是灵感和个人感受，而不是其他人的意见。
3、还是艺术家猛。从小说、绘画和电影说明。


正文：

Whether does the artist or the critic provide society with something of lasting value? While I concede that the critic indeed contributes to the development of human culture and gives society something valuable, I do believe that rather than critics, artists have lasting impact on human civilization.

Admittedly, the critic indeed offer public even the artist some valuable things. In the first place, as the representative of public, critics who hold the speaking right about arts in various mediums, always convey their opinions about certain artistic work in television programs, newspapers, and lectures. As a result, they potentially stimulate the formation of public aesthetical standards. Secondly, the critic can sometimes can as a filter of products in music, book, and film industry so as to assist culture consumers to efficiently select what they need among the innumerous alternatives. In addition, the critic can sometimes provide precious and instructive opinions toward the production of artists, which helps the artists' creation.

Conceding that critics influence public aesthetical standard, consumer's choice and the artists' creation, I think that all of these contributions mentioned above provide little lasting value to society. Turning to the threshold function of critics, the so-called "public aesthetical standard" has been continuously changing in contemporary society. Actually, what is more significant and of more lasting value than the changeable "public aesthetical standard" is the formal aesthetical education, which is stable and provides student more objective opinions. As for the second function of the critic, unluckily, a great deal of historical experience informs us that critics sometimes fail to provide valuable and objective opinions for public’s choice. Consider, for instance, previous critics who are authority at the time of Beethoven. Since Beethoven's music was different with or even broke the standard compose principles, critics in that time belittled Beethoven's masterpieces that actually are significant treasures of human civilization. With respect to the ultimate function of the critic, although the critic, in several cases, serves as a volunteer instructor and indeed provides some constructive opinions, it is the inspiration and emotion of artists that make artistic creations possible, rather than some established principles or someone's opinions. In a word, critics do not provide society lots of things of lasting value, though they contribute to society.

In my observation, artists are the people who give society lasting valuable things. In the field of the novel, numerous masterpieces successfully reflect the society where they were written from different angles and hence become significant documents for contemporary people and descendants to gain an emotional cognition about history. In the field of paintings, a great number of works directly or indirectly reveal the cruel and inhuman of war, the under voice of public , and the beautiful scene of nature, each of which efficiently respectively serve to make people more treasure the peaceful life, point out social problems, and evoke people’s environment-protection consciousness. In term of movie, lots of films, as nutrient diet for the spirit, impress audience and besides make people think. Considering “Forrest Gump”, which has impacted innumerous viewers and will continuously impact our descendants, it not only entertains viewers but also tell people never, never look down on their dreams, evokes our passion about life, and encourages everyone to create their own destiny. So to speak, artists bring us a lot of treasures of lasting value.

In conclusion, as far as I concerned, although the critic influence public and arts in several respects, the artist indisputably provides more things of value to human society not only because can artists’ works mirror history, but also because artists’ works reflect social problems. What’s more, artists’ works appealing to our emotion always impress us and then make us think.

[ 本帖最后由 benni 于 2006-7-4 20:14 编辑 ]

timboyUID: 193944

文章整体很流畅，顺便问一下，你的issue提纲全部写完了吗，感觉你已经写了n篇了。
感觉你的第二点中
it is the inspiration and emotion of artists that make artistic creations possible, rather than some established principles or someone's opinions. In a word, critics do not provide society lots of things of lasting value, though they contribute to society.
感觉有点和lasting value的关系不太紧密，此外词汇要加强，angle， I think之类最好不要出现。
整体写的很熟练，加油！
帮忙看看我的吧：）和你的角度不太一样:)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

jujuangelaUID: 2181388

Whether does the artist or the critic provide society with something of lasting value? While I concede that the critic indeed contributes to the development of human culture and gives society something valuable, I do believe that rather than critics, artists have lasting impact on human civilization.

Admittedly, the critic indeed offer public even the artist some valuable things. In the first place, as the representative of public, critics who hold the speaking right about arts in various mediums, always convey their opinions about certain artistic work in television programs, newspapers, and lectures. As a result, they potentially stimulate the formation of public aesthetical standards. Secondly, the critic can sometimes can as a filter of products in music, book, and film industry so as to assist culture consumers to efficiently select what they need among the innumerous alternatives. In addition, the critic can sometimes provide precious and instructive opinions toward the production of artists, which helps the artists' creation.

Conceding that critics influence public aesthetical standard, consumer's choice and the artists' creation, I think that all of these contributions mentioned above provide little lasting value to society. Turning to the threshold function of critics, the so-called "public aesthetical standard" has been continuously changing in contemporary society. Actually, what is more significant and of more lasting value than the changeable "public aesthetical standard" is the formal aesthetical education, which is stable and provides student more objective opinions. As for the second function of the critic, unluckily, a great deal of historical experience informs us that critics sometimes fail to provide valuable and objective opinions for public’s choice. Consider, for instance, previous critics who are authority at the time of Beethoven. Since Beethoven's music was different with or even broke the standard compose principles, critics in that time belittled Beethoven's masterpieces that actually are significant treasures of human civilization. With respect to the ultimate function of the critic, although the critic, in several cases, serves as a volunteer instructor and indeed provides some constructive opinions, it is the inspiration and emotion of artists that make artistic creations possible, rather than some established principles or someone's opinions. In a word, critics do not provide society lots of things of lasting value, though they contribute to society.

In my observation, artists are the people who give society lasting valuable things. In the field of the novel, numerous masterpieces successfully reflect the society where they were written from different angles and hence become significant documents for contemporary people and descendants to gain an emotional cognition about history. In the field of paintings, a great number of works directly or indirectly reveal the cruel and inhuman of war, the under voice of public , and the beautiful scene of nature, each of which efficiently respectively serve to make people more treasure the peaceful life, point out social problems, and evoke people’s environment-protection consciousness. In term of movie, lots of films, as nutrient diet for the spirit, impress audience and besides make people think. Considering “Forrest Gump”, which has impacted innumerous viewers and will continuously impact our descendants,和前面有句话重复，可以删去 it not only entertains viewers but also tell people never, never look down on their dreams, evokes our passion about life, and encourages everyone to create their own destiny. So to speak, artists bring us a lot of treasures of lasting value.

In conclusion, as far as I concerned, although the critic influence public and arts in several respects, the artist indisputably provides more things of value to human society not only because can artists’ works mirror history, but also because artists’ works reflect social problems. What’s more, artists’ works appealing to our emotion always impress us and then make us think.

benni，这篇写的很好啊！几乎没什么可以挑的哈:p
看看我的，完全支持critic，上个星期写的，很面的说：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D3