issue144 第一篇issue第一次发帖 ：）

climateUID: 2240439

TOPIC: 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.

提纲：主要同意作者的观点
主体分三段展开
第一段说明artist比critic重要因为critique来源于aritistic work，先有aritistic work才有critique
第二段说明真正持久的价值存在艺术品之中，而艺术品是由艺术家创作出来的，所以artist更重要
第三段说明也不能忽略批评者们的作用，因其一方面有利于艺术的推广，一方面也从反面促进了艺术的发展。

自己写作水平有限，没怎么使用长句子，也没有高级词汇，希望大家给出批评意见，谢谢啦！ ：）

The author asserts that artist, rather than critic, is the one who gives lasting value to the society. Fundamentally, I agree with the author's point of view in that artistic work is the foundation of critique and that the artist provides enduring works for the society to appreciate while most of the critiques fade away with time passing by; yet, the critic also contribute to the lasting value, though not so much as the artist.

To begin with, artist is more of importance than critic in creating lasting value to society in that critique results from artistic work. All of the critiques must depend on the artistic work on which they criticize. Artistic work is the soil that critique grows with. It is hard to imagine there to be any critique where no artistic work exists. After all, critique is made after the creation of the artistic work. Take Monet's Impression, Sunrise for example: if Monet didn’t paint Impression, Sunrise, no critique of this painting will be produced at all. It is just the painting Monet has paint that these critiques spring from. From this angle, it is appropriate to conclude that the critics rely on artists to survive. Thus, asserting that artist have priority to critic is justifiable.

Moreover, it is not the critic but the artist who provides the artistic work that carry lasting value. Lasting value bears in the artistic work’s originality and uniqueness, and the artistic work was created by the artists, thus it is undoubtedly that artist gives the lasting value to the society. History teaches us that the most lasting attractive are the artistic works rather than the critiques made about them. Years go by, but many of the artistic works which the artist left to us still fascinate the future generation. So many people were caught by the fantastic melody of The Blue Danube River, scrapped by the plot of Gone with the wind, addicted to Lucas's Star Wars. On the contrary, how many critics can be remembered for their critiques on these works when subjected to the lapse of time? There is no denying that artistic work is the final resource of lasting value.

While I concede that artist does contribute more to the lasting value, I have to point out that critic also makes its own effort in two aspects. First of all, the critic calls the public attention to the artistic work and therefore helps increase the popularity of the artistic work. For instance, when some critics propose that Mona Lisa may be Da Vinci's self-portrait and others infer that Da Vinci may imply that he is a homosexuality by painting Mona Lisa, lots of people are attracted to study this famous painting, trying to find the meaning behind the canvas. Secondly, the artist’s work is improved with the stimulation from the critics. Obviously, when the critics impose sever critique on the artistic work, the artists, at least some of them, will try to improve the work so as to reach a higher standard. By doing so, the critic actually promote the development of lasting value to the society.

winsome_luoUID: 2146848

The author asserts that artist, rather than critic, is the one who gives lasting value to the society. Fundamentally, I agree with the author's point [of view] in that artistic work is the foundation of critique and that the artist provides enduring works for the society to appreciate while most of the critiques fade away [with->as] time pass[ing] by; yet, the critic also contribute to the lasting value, though not so much as the artist.

To begin with, artist is more of importance than critic in creating lasting value to society in that critique results from artistic work. All of the critiques must depend on the artistic work [on] which they criticize. Artistic work is the soil that critique grows with[比喻不错]. It is hard to imagine there to be any critique where no artistic work exists. After all, critique is made after the creation of the artistic work. Take Monet's Impression, Sunrise for example: if Monet didn’t paint Impression[虚拟语气的时态,过去时?我也不确定], Sunrise, no critique of this painting will be produced at all. It is just the painting Monet has paint that these critiques spring from. From this angle, it is appropriate to conclude that the critics rely on artists to survive. Thus, asserting that artist have priority to critic is justifiable.[这一点的论证很有力, 俺就没有想到]

Moreover, it is not the critic but the artist who provides the artistic work that carry lasting value. Lasting value bears in the artistic work’s originality and uniqueness, and the artistic work was created by the artists, thus it is undoubtedly that artist gives the lasting value to the society. History teaches us that the most lasting attractive are the artistic works rather than the critiques made about them. Years go by, but many of the artistic works which the artist left to us still fascinate the future generation. So many people were caught by the fantastic melody of The Blue Danube River, scrapped by the plot of Gone with the wind, addicted to Lucas's Star Wars. On the contrary, how many critics can be remembered for their critiques on these works when subjected to the lapse of time? There is no denying that artistic work is the final resource of lasting value.[我觉得在论述lasting这一点时,不妨说艺术作品一旦创造出来, 是永恒的,而所谓的评论反映的只是当时那个时代的看法,有局恨性, 随着时间或时代的改变, 看法也会随之而变, 因此永恒不变的是艺术作品, 而不是对他们的评论, 不晓得这样子看对不对, 也欢迎楼主指正]

While I concede that artist does contribute more to the lasting value[这句话什么意思?], I have to point out that critic also makes its own effort in two aspects. First of all, the critic calls the public attention to the artistic work and therefore helps increase the popularity of the artistic work. For instance, when some critics propose that Mona Lisa may be Da Vinci's self-portrait and others infer that Da Vinci may imply that he is a homosexuality by painting Mona Lisa, lots of people are attracted to study this famous painting, trying to find the meaning behind the canvas. Secondly, the artist’s work is improved with the stimulation from the critics. Obviously, when the critics impose sever critique on the artistic work, the artists, at least some of them, will try to improve the work so as to reach a higher standard. By doing so, the critic actually promote the development of lasting value to the society.[很有说服力]

总结:楼主的论证很有力,很多例子都恰到好处, 建议结尾加一段总结

climateUID: 2240439

虚拟语气：if he hadn't painted Sunrise, no critique of this painting would havel been produced at all.(问了下英语老师 ^-^)

我觉得在论述lasting这一点时,不妨说艺术作品一旦创造出来, 是永恒的,而所谓的评论反映的只是当时那个时代的看法,有局恨性, 随着时间或时代的改变, 看法也会随之而变, 因此永恒不变的是艺术作品, 而不是对他们的评论, 不晓得这样子看对不对, 也欢迎楼主指正

我觉得你说的很好啊 我就没有想到 呵呵

While I concede that artist does contribute more to the lasting value[这句话什么意思?]
呃，我是不是表达不清，就是想做一个让步，说艺术家确实对lasting value有更大的贡献……

结尾居然没有贴上来 自己没有注意 不好意思 ^-^
To sum up, the artists do play a comparatively more important role in giving the society something of lasting value, yet we cannot ignore the function of critics as well. Only when combining the effort of artistic and critic can we add more to the society's lasting value.

climateUID: 2240439

TOPIC: 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.

The author asserts that artist, rather than critic, is the one who gives lasting value to the society. Fundamentally, I agree with the author's viewpoint in that artistic work is the foundation of critique and that the artist provides enduring works for the society to appreciate while most of the critiques fade away as time pass by; yet, the critic also contribute to the lasting value, though not so much as the artist.

To begin with, artist is more of importance than critic in creating lasting value to society in that critique results from artistic work. All of the critiques must depend on the artistic work which they criticize. Artistic work is the soil that critique grows with. It is hard to imagine there to be any critique where no artistic work exists. After all, critique is made after the creation of the artistic work. Take Monet's Impression, Sunrise for example: if Monet hadn’t painted Impression, Sunrise, no critique of this painting would have been produced at all. It is just the painting Monet has paint that these critiques spring from. From this angle, it is appropriate to conclude that the critics rely on artists to survive. Thus, asserting that artist have priority to critic is justifiable.

Moreover, it is not the critic but the artist who provides the artistic work that carry lasting value. Once produced, the artistic work would last for a longtime, to some extent, even eternal. History teaches us that the most lasting attractive are the artistic works rather than the critiques made about them. Years go by, but many of the artistic works which the artist left to us still fascinate the future generation. So many people were caught by the fantastic melody of The Blue Danube River, scrapped by the plot of Gone with the wind, addicted to Lucas's Star Wars. On the contrary, what critiques reflect is the perception of that era, which is limited by the deepness of thoughts in that era. Consider, for example, Beethoven’s symphony had encountered with hard critiques in his time but received high evaluation afterwards. There is no denying that artistic work is the final resource of lasting value. Lasting value bears in the artistic work’s originality and uniqueness, not the critiques.

While I concede that artist does contribute more to the lasting value, I have to point out that critic also makes its own effort in two aspects. First of all, the critic calls the public attention to the artistic work and therefore helps increase the popularity of the artistic work. For instance, when some critics propose that Mona Lisa may be Da Vinci's self-portrait and others infer that Da Vinci may imply that he is a homosexuality by painting Mona Lisa, lots of people are attracted to study this famous painting, trying to find the meaning behind the canvas. Secondly, the artist’s work is improved with the stimulation from the critics. Obviously, when the critics impose sever critique on the artistic work, the artists, at least some of them, will try to improve the work so as to reach a higher standard. By doing so, the critic actually promote the development of lasting value to the society.

To sum up, the artists do play a comparatively more important role in giving the society something of lasting value, yet we cannot ignore the function of critics as well. Only when combining the effort of artistic and critic can we add more to the society's lasting value.