ISSUE144 求拍!

kobestrongUID: 2117374

谢谢大家了~!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.


  I strongly agree with the speaker’s contention that it is the artists, giving the society something of lasting value, while the critics, at most, doing some evaluating work. My view will be confirmed by the following discussion.

  To begin with, art itself is created by the artist, not related with anyone else. A true art, full of value, is absolutely the manifestation of the talent of the artist, the outpouring of subjective emotion and the overflow of the instantaneous inspiration. True appreciation of art occurs at the moment we encounter art, and coming into resonance with the artist. That is the real value of art, which could never replaced by someone’s critique or explanation. Take example of Beethoven, one of the greatest composers. As we know, Beethoven began to lose his hearing in 1801 and had been entirely deaf by 1819. However, this obstacle could not stop him from becoming the most famous composer in art history and a great fighter against the doom. During his def period, he even created several great symphonies, and when his finale of Ninth Symphonies, Chorus, was played, the audiences were deeply moved and appreciated the value lying in the art. If only depending on some critics’ evaluation, the art would never pure its value in such a natural way.

  Furthermore, it is suspicious that the critics could evaluate the arts with fair and objectivity. It is a fact that different people have different background, such as the living environment, the religion, the world value and even the era which would on a high extent limit the critics’ judgment, leading them to subjective evaluation. What’s worse, due to some art critics’ ego, they would hardly give an art a fair judgment. Van Gogh, the great painter with a miserable life, is just an example. Van Gogh, the talent painter, creatively used his work to manifest his imagination, which, however, was antipathetic at that time, and people all considered him as a crazy fool that only one of Van Gogh’s works was sold when he was alive. Thus, we can see that the unfair and limited evaluations would obscure the value of a true art.

  However, admittedly, not all the critiques are harmful to the true art, while some critics really make the unbeknown masterpieces preserved and widespread. Likewise, take Van Gogh for example. As mentioned above, he received little apt evaluations and appreciation from the critics during his life time. However, after his death, the critics played a very important role in revealing the true value of his works and make them coming down. In this extent, we have to admit that critics’ evaluation helps some certain art manifest its value to the world.

  To sum up, artists create arts and their value that display their talent and inspiration. The critics’ judgments are often limited by narrow confines leading to their unfair evaluations, while sometimes their really constructive evaluations could make the obscured masterpieces spread.

xiaowenzi118UID: 202887

I strongly agree with the speaker’s contention that it is the artists, giving the society something of lasting value, while the critics, at most, doing some evaluating work. My view will be confirmed by the following discussion.

To begin with, art itself is created by the artist, not related with anyone else. A true art, full of value, is absolutely the manifestation of the talent of the artist, the outpouring of subjective emotion and the overflow of the instantaneous inspiration. True appreciation of art occurs at the moment we encounter art, and coming into resonance with the artist. That is the real value of art, which could never replaced by someone’s critique or explanation. Take example of Beethoven, one of the greatest composers. As we know, Beethoven began to lose his hearing in 1801 and had been entirely deaf by 1819. However, this obstacle could not stop him from becoming the most famous composer in art history and a great fighter against the doom. During his def period, he even created several great symphonies, and when his finale of Ninth Symphonies, Chorus, was played, the audiences were deeply moved and appreciated the value lying in the art.(这个例子太长了,而且想证明什么呢?) If only depending on some critics’ evaluation, the art would never pure its value in such a natural way.

Furthermore, it is suspicious that the critics could evaluate the arts with fair and objectivity. It is a fact that different people have different background, such as the living environment, the religion, the world value and even the era which would on a high extent limit the critics’ judgment, leading them to subjective evaluation. What’s worse, due to some art critics’ ego, they would hardly give an art a fair judgment. Van Gogh, the great painter with a miserable life, is just an example. Van Gogh, the talent painter, creatively used his work to manifest his imagination, which, however, was antipathetic at that time, and people all considered him as a crazy fool that only one of Van Gogh’s works was sold when he was alive. （同样的问题）Thus, we can see that the unfair and limited evaluations would obscure the value of a true art.

However, admittedly, not all the critiques are harmful to the true art, while some critics really make the unbeknown masterpieces preserved and widespread. Likewise, take Van Gogh for example. As mentioned above, he received little apt evaluations and appreciation from the critics during his life time. However, after his death, the critics played a very important role in revealing the true value of his works and make them coming down. In this extent, we have to admit that critics’ evaluation helps some certain art manifest its value to the world.

To sum up, artists create arts and their value that display their talent and inspiration. The critics’ judgments are often limited by narrow confines leading to their unfair evaluations, while sometimes their really constructive evaluations could make the obscured masterpieces spread.

一个例子太长了而且重复。艺术类的其实观点很容易有的，论述也很容易想到的。就是苦于例子呀。:@
观点的问题嘛,论点是long lasting value,不是critics对artists的好处吧。看你的观点似乎是给出正确评价就有long lasting value了? 可以参考一下北美范文，看看critics 的作用。

kobestrongUID: 2117374

嗯~~ 多谢WENZI,是感觉说例子的时候怪怪的!而且审题时还忽略了long lasting value.......