issue144 请拍！（逻辑感总觉得不够好）

queeniezUID: 2203712

144"It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

(没限时；以加强逻辑感为己任，不过好像效果也不太好。请拍！)
1. 艺术家创造了作品
2. 作品的价值不因为鉴定家的评论而改变
3. 评论家对指导人们认识作品的价值有一定的作用但不是决定性的作用。

When it comes to the question that whether the artist or the critic gives society something of lasting value, it is difficult to attain an affirmed answer without the definition of “value”. While, as far as I am concerned the value to society means worth of the art works which should not only be represented by the price in the auction, for the reason that the price counted in money is changing and cannot mentioned as something of lasting one. And from this point of view, I agree with the speaker that something of lasting value is offered by the artist rather than the critic.

The artist, as the creator of the art works, is the origin of the lasting value. For instance, only after Da Vinci painted the well-know painting Monalize, the society processes something of permanent merit. And during the process of creating such a piece of world famous work, all the endeavors are exerted by the Da Vinci himself. From the composition to the conception together with the painting techniques, which are the main factors of a great painting, none of the part involves in the effort of critics. Even if the critics process a great amount of expertise knowledge and practical experience in evaluating art works, the existence of such art works is prerequisite for the critic to appreciate it. In a world, without the effort of artist there would be none art works no mentioning those of lasting value.

What's more, the critics' comment on the value of the art works can hardly influence the value of the art works. The critics are always regarded as those who understand best the value of the art works, however the notion is open to doubt, when we retrospect the history of art. It is not difficult to realize that the critics are subject to mistakes especially facing something of last values in the field of art. On the one hand, many artists, who are world-wide famous nowadays, died in namelessness and poverty for their works could not cater to the taste of the critics at their time. On the other hand, there were some other artists, whose works received the high appraisement from those critics, turn out to be no more than some fairly good painters. The critics were not able to offer any effort in adding a bit more value to the work or decreasing its value.

Admittedly, it is true that the critic play an important role in the aspects of leading the layouts to get understanding of the arts work. For example it might be not so hard for people to realize that the painting of sunflower from Van Gogh is unusual and insightful than many other paintings, the critics are needed when people want to get a better understanding of what makes the work so different to the viewers. However, the role of the critics is far from that of artist in giving the society.

Though the critic has its significance in some aspects in the period of discovery of the value of the artist work, I would rather regarded the artist as the creator of something with permanent value for the society, because the artist created the art work with lasting value and the value cannot be undermined by the recommendation of the critics.

georgiayzhUID: 2225237

十号改的作业:
When it comes to the question that whether the artist or the critic gives society something of lasting value, it is difficult to attain an affirmed answer without the definition of “value”. While, as far as I am concerned the value to society means worth of the art works which should not only be represented by the price in the auction, for the reason that the price counted in money is changing and cannot [be] mentioned as something of lasting one. And from this point of view, I agree with the speaker that something of lasting value is offered by the artist rather than the critic.
呵呵，别具一格阿，不过是不是太挑刺拉。。。

The artist, as the creator of the art works, is the origin[这个词用的似乎不是太好吧？] of the lasting value. For instance, only after Da Vinci painted the well-know painting Monalize, [Mona Lisa] the society processes something of permanent merit[这里应该用倒装吧]. And during the process of creating such a piece of world famous work, all the endeavors are exerted by the Da Vinci himself. From the composition to the conception together with the painting techniques, which are the main factors of a great painting, none of the part involves in the effort of critics. Even if the critics process a great amount of expertise knowledge and practical experience in evaluating art works, the existence of such art works is prerequisite for the critic to appreciate it. In a world[word], without the effort of artist there would be none art works no mentioning[更别提用let alone比较好吧] those of lasting value.

What's more, the critics' comment on the value of the art works can hardly influence the value of the art works. The critics are always regarded as those who understand best the value of the art works, however the notion is open to doubt, when we retrospect the history of art. It is not difficult to realize that the critics are subject to[？] mistakes especially facing something of last[ing] values in the field of art. On the[这里好像没有the吧] one hand, many artists, who are world-wide famous nowadays, died in namelessness [有这个词吗？died without being recognized,这样改跟后面又不协调了，anyway, you decide] and poverty for their works could not cater to the taste of the critics at their time. On the other hand, there were some other artists, whose works received the high appraisement from those critics, turn out to be no more than some fairly good painters. The critics were not able to offer any effort in adding a bit more value to the work or decreasing its value.

Admittedly, it is true that the critic play an important role in the aspects of leading the layouts to get understanding of the arts work. For example it might be not so hard for people to realize that the painting of sunflower from Van Gogh is unusual and insightful than many other paintings,[这里用的是比较级，但是你的形容词是原级啊] the critics are needed when people want to get a better understanding of what makes the work so different to the viewers. However, the role of the critics is far from that of artist in giving the society[“far from”用在这里似乎不是很好，可以用overweight].
Though the critic has its[呵呵， 你对别人不尊重哦，怎么能用its?] significance in some aspects in the period[这个词用在这里似乎不妥，到底怎么改没想到] of [the] discovery of the value of the artist work, I would rather regarded[regard] the artist as the creator of something with permanent value for the society, because the artist created the art work with lasting value and the value cannot be undermined by the recommendation of the critics.

Comments: 你的语言还是比较好的，读起来很顺畅。
不过呢，个人觉得你没有很好的理解题目的意思。
你所谓的价值是艺术作品本身的价值，而任何一件艺术品或多或少有它的价值， 而我们要讨论的是给社会带来lasting value的艺术作品的价值跟谁的关系比较大点。
想想一件很有价值的东西，如果没有批评家的炒作似乎也只是单纯的有价值而没有发挥作用的艺术作品。我觉得题目中的value还是benefits 的意思比较大点，当然这并不是本文要着重讨论的东西，但是由于你提到了，我就顺便发表一下愚见。。。
推动一件艺术作品的长久价值，我觉得说criticsa的正面作用比说没有什么决定性作用简单点吧。
个人意见，仅供参考。