ISSU144 critic有拍毕回！

咯噔UID：2114564

Issue144  第6篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：36分52秒     464 words
从2005年7月26日10时3分到2005年7月26日10时36分
------题目------
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.
------正文------
Who gives society something of lasting value, artist or critic? This question raises several issues about both art and society. I concede that artist do create a lot of things that society can not forget. On balance, however, I generally disagree with the speaker that critics don't give society something of lasting value.

Admittedly, the point that artist create lasting value is obviously justified since we learn a lot from the art pieces that we own now. Consider, for example, Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, famous for her secret but beautiful smile. Until now we are guessing what does her smile mean and learn about aesthetics from it. Or consider Picasso's Guernica, which described the terror of the bombing in a small town. Although it is so abstract that few of us can thoroughly understand it, it renders us a compassion to fight against wars, which remains the same in all the human history.


Albeit this point is reasonable to some extent, it only plays a, if any, supplementary role to my negative judgment; based on my cognition and observed facts, I still persist in my view that critics also give lasting value to the society.

First, my view is substantiated by the reason that the critic encourages critical thinking. Today, in a society praising quick answer and standard, it is difficult to speak out one's own opinions about a thing. But the critic does this job. In a world that critics speak more freely, people are more open to new concepts. Consider, for example, America, a country owning a tradition to query authorities. Since it is by overthrow the English king that brought out America's independence, people there are known to have critical thinking and stunning courage to express their thinking or complaint, especially to those concepts that are already accepted by all people and this spirit has established America as a birthplace of innovation.

Second, another reason for my proposition lies in the fact that critics give people different angles to see the world. Consider, for example, Shakspear's dramas, which is highly evaluated by most of people. Even Goethe, the famous litterateur, once said that when he open Shakspears's book, his life is no longer belongs to him but the book. But recently criticism arises. It says that since Shakespear's dramas, such as Hemlet or King Lear, are too easily welcomed by public, they are something of little art value. Although this comment contradicts to our common convictions, it gives us another way to think about this event.

In sum, although I concede that artists gives us works of permanent value, I generally think that critics are also worth appreciating since they also render the society a lot. After all, in a world in which our human survival skill as a species mainly depend on human's special thinking, we should acknowledge critics' value.

elina.muUID：201933

Who gives society something of lasting value, artist or critic? This question raises several issues about both art and society. I concede that artists do create a lot of things that society can not forget. On balance, however, I generally disagree with the speaker that critics don't give society something of lasting value.

Admittedly, the point that artist create lasting value is obviously justified since we learn a lot from the art masterpieces that we own now. Consider, for example, Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, which is famous for her secret but beautiful smile. Until now we are guessing what does her smile mean and learn about aesthetics from it (？？句子结构应该是因果吧) . Or consider Picasso's Guernica, which described the terror of the bombing in a small town. Although it is so abstract that few of us can thoroughly understand it, it renders us a compassion to fight against wars, which remains the same in all the human history（这句话指代不是很清楚，我不明白你要表达的意思）.


Albeit this point is reasonable to some extent, it only plays, if any, a supplementary role to my negative judgment; based on my cognition and observed facts, I still persist in my view that critics also give lasting value to the society.

First, my view is substantiated by the reason that the critic encourages critical thinking. Today, in a society praising quick answer and standard, it is difficult to speak out one's own opinions about a thing. But the critic does this job. In a world that critics speak more freely, people are more open to new concepts. Consider, for example, America, a country owning a tradition to query authorities. Since it is by overthrow the English king that brought out America's independence, people there are known to have critical thinking and stunning courage to express their thinking or complaint, especially to those concepts that are already accepted by all people and this spirit has established America as a birthplace of innovation.（谈论艺术家和评论家的关系，即使想说评论家的好，也要和艺术扯上关系。）

Second, another reason for my proposition lies in the fact that critics give people different angles to see the world. Consider, for example, Shakspear's dramas, which is highly evaluated by most of people. Even Goethe, the famous litterateur, once said that when he open Shakspears's book, his life is no longer belongs to him but the book. But recently criticism arises. It says that since Shakespear's dramas, such as Hemlet or King Lear, are too easily welcomed by public, they are something of little art value. Although this comment contradicts to our common convictions, it gives us another way to think about this event.（这好像是反例吧）

In sum, although I concede that artists gives us works of permanent value, I generally think that critics are also worth appreciating since they also render the society a lot. After all, in a world in which our human survival skill as a species mainly depend on human's special thinking, we should acknowledge critics' value.
怎么说呢，题目是说艺术家和评论家的关系，看谁创造了永久的价值，在你这篇 文章中，好像没有看到你要支持的观点：评论家对社会做出的永久价值的相关例子。