Issue144 第一篇...欢迎来拍~

jason_wujchUID: 2147188

第一篇写,感觉语言贫乏啊... 欢迎高手来指点~

144"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.

第一段,正面谈艺术的价值,举例说明人们value art than critique.
第二段,分析原因一
第三段,原因二,critics的局限性。
第四段,让不说明critics也有一定的作用

I agree with the statement’s assertion that art, not art critic, provides something of lasting value to society. Although the critic has some merit in art, they have certain limitations and restrictions in creating works of lasting value.

First and foremost, it can be viewed and verified by myriads of examples in our daily life that masterpieces of art, mainly in form of painting, sculpture, architecture, and photography and new media, leave our society with priceless value. For example, people can name right out the masters of the High Renaissance: Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Titan, but few know even one of the critic contemporaneous with them; great works in all forms of art are exhibited in museums around the world, while critiques can be rarely seen there; people spend millions of dollars to purchase artworks by auction, whereas critiques worth little. The above examples illustrate from three aspects that art is indeed of tremendous lasting value to the society.

This phenomenon can be ascribed to several reasons. One is that the way artists work is to create beauty, to express their thoughts, and to reflect the culture of their times; the way critics work is mostly based on the artwork of those artists, and is to comment, to criticize and to appreciate, thus is accessory to art. The artist is like an ingenious scientist who discovers those fundamental laws in nature, but the critic is just one that can understand the laws and explain them to ordinary people, so critic itself does not create much value.

Another reason why works of critics contribute less to our society is that they have strong limitations of their times, from diverse sources such as religion, mainstream cognizance, and the taste of the majority. Since writing critique is rather a vocation than an interest to critics, they have to present the ordinary people with what they favor and they judge the works with criteria accepted by the mainstream society, even with somewhat jealousness as most critics are unsuccessful artists. With such attitude and thoughts in mind, critics are like to undermine works of art that later turn out to be masterpieces. One famous example is Van Gogh. To conclude, critics sometimes can be even counterproductive to achieving the objective of art.

Admittedly, critics do have their contribution to the cause of art in their particular ways. A critic is one who knows the way but cannot drive, however, sometime the drive needs a guide. Critics can help artists improve their work – by providing them with views and insights from different angles and comparisons with other artists. Besides, critics also help ordinary people to better understand and appreciate those masterpieces, since some works of art are quite abstract and require some aesthetic background. Last, with the advent of the 21 first century and the information exploration, we sometimes feel lost in the universe of art and therefore need someone to filter those bad artworks for us – critics serve this purpose well.

To sum up, one has to admit that critics can help artists to improve their works and guide the majority into the world of art. However, it is artists rather than critics that can provide society with things of lasting valueg.

jason_wujchUID: 2147188

没人来拍我的啊...

skyeUID: 2114803

144"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.

第一段,正面谈艺术的价值,举例说明人们value art than critique.
第二段,分析原因一
第三段,原因二,critics的局限性。
第四段,让不说明critics也有一定的作用

I agree with the statement’s assertion that art, not artcritic, provides something of lasting value to society. Although the critic has some merit in art, they have certain limitations and restrictions in creating works of lasting value.

First and foremost, it can be viewed and verified by myriads of examples in our daily life that masterpieces of art, mainly in form of painting, sculpture, architecture, and photography and new media, leave our society with priceless value. For example, people can name right out the masters of the High Renaissance: Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Titan, but few know even one of the critic contemporaneous with them; great works in all forms of art are exhibited in museums around the world, while critiques can be rarely seen there; people spend millions of dollars to purchase artworks by auction, whereas critiques worth little. The above examples illustrate from three aspects that art is indeed of tremendous lasting value to the society.（感觉很直接也很切题，三个方面干净利落）
This phenomenon can be ascribed to several reasons. One is that the way artists work is to create beauty, to express their thoughts, and to reflect the culture of their times; the way critics work is mostly based on the artwork of those artists, and is to comment, to criticize and to appreciate, thus is accessory to art. The artist is like an ingenious scientist who discovers those fundamental laws in nature, but the critic is just one that can understand the laws and explain them to ordinary people, so critic itself does not create much value. （四句话各司其职。且中间两句相对应。值得学习）

Another reason why works of critics contribute less to our society is that they have strong limitations of their times, (和时代有关系？其他地方没有说明) from diverse sources such as religion, mainstream cognizance, and the taste of the majority. Since writing critique is rather a vocation than an interest to critics, they have to present the ordinary people with what they favor and they judge the works with criteria accepted by the mainstream society, even with somewhat jealousness as most critics are unsuccessful artists. With such attitude and thoughts in mind, critics are like to undermine works of art that later turn out to be masterpieces. One famous example is Van Gogh. To conclude, critics sometimes can be even counterproductive to achieving the objective of art.

Admittedly, critics do have their contribution to the cause of art in their particular ways. A critic is one who knows the way but cannot drive, however, sometimes the drive needs a guide. Critics can help artists improve their work – by providing them with views and insights from different angles and comparisons with other artists. Besides, critics also help ordinary people to better understand and appreciate those masterpieces, since some works of art are quite abstract and require some aesthetic background. Last, with the advent of the 21 first century and the information exploration, we sometimes feel lost in the universe of art and therefore need someone to filter those bad artworks for us – critics serve this purpose well.

To sum up, one has to admit that critics can help artists to improve their works and guide the majority into the world of art. However, it is artists rather than critics that can provide society with things of lasting value.

感谢你帮我改作文！ 很明显你写的比我好多了，有很多值得我学习的地方，从语言到文章布局。很遗憾我不能给你提什么意见了。希望有更牛的人再帮你改改。

flypandaUID: 2184634

看不懂！

jason_wujchUID: 2147188

感谢来拍我的作文...共同进步

jason_wujchUID: 2147188

up...

daidai_4UID: 2194147

Issue144 第一篇...欢迎来拍~

第一篇写,感觉语言贫乏啊... 欢迎高手来指点~

144"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.

第一段,正面谈艺术的价值,举例说明人们value art than critique.
第二段,分析原因一
第三段,原因二,critics的局限性。
第四段,让不说明critics也有一定的作用

I agree with the statement’s assertion that art, not art critic, provides something of lasting value to society. Although the critic has some merit in art, they have certain limitations and restrictions in creating works of lasting value.

First and foremost, it can be viewed and verified by myriads of examples in our daily life that masterpieces of art, mainly in form formsof painting, sculpture, architecture, and photography and new media, leave 这个小词感觉不错 our society with priceless value. For example, people can name right out the masters of the High Renaissance: Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Titan, but few know even one of the critic contemporaneous with them; great works in all forms of art are exhibited in museums around the world, while critiques can be rarely seen there; people spend millions of dollars to purchase artworks by auction, whereas critiques worth little. The above examples illustrate from three aspects that art is indeed of tremendous lasting value to the society.　　［论证展开的角度很新颖啊　而且避免了谈艺术本身这种难度问题］

This phenomenon can be ascribed to several reasons. One is that the way artists work is to create beauty, to express their thoughts, and to reflect the culture of their times; the way critics work is mostly based on the artwork of those artists, and is to comment, to criticize and to appreciate, thus is accessory to art. The artist is like an ingenious scientist who discovers those fundamental laws in nature, but the critic is just one that can understand the laws and explain them to ordinary people, so critic itself does not create much value.

Another reason why works of critics contribute less to our society is that they their critiques have strong limitations of their times   due to the times and society they live in , from diverse sources such as religion, mainstream cognizance, and the taste of the majority. Since writing critique is rather a vocation than an interest to critics, they have to present provide   present的宾语应该是被展示的东西 the ordinary people with what they favor and they judge the works with criteria accepted by the mainstream society, even with somewhat jealousness as most critics are unsuccessful artists. With such attitude and thoughts in mind, critics are like to undermine 这词不错 works of art that later turn out to be masterpieces. One famous example is Van Gogh. To conclude, critics sometimes can be even counterproductive to achieving the objective of art.

Admittedly, critics do have their contribution to the cause of art in their particular ways. A critic is one who knows the way but cannot drive, however, sometime the drive needs a guide. Critics can help artists improve their work – by providing them with views and insights from different angles and comparisons with other artists. Besides, critics also help ordinary people to better understand and appreciate those masterpieces, since some works of art are quite abstract and require some aesthetic background. Last, with the advent of the 21 first century and the information exploration, we sometimes feel lost in the universe of art and therefore need someone to filter those bad artworks for us – critics serve this purpose well.

To sum up, one has to admit that critics can help artists to improve their works and guide the majority into the world of art. However, it is artists rather than critics that can provide society with things of lasting valueg.

思路和展开都不错　尤其佩服第二段把art’s lasting value 转嫁为别的方面　　但之后好象就在说艺术和评论之对于value 而没提 lasting value　的影响　　可能忽视了　
至于怎么谈　lasting value的问题　我也觉得困难呀

拍下我的　　谢了
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... xtra=#pid1768266216

jason_wujchUID: 2147188

多谢你提的意见