Issue144 改过两边了！大家拍拍！

ChunyanLi2005UID: 2124266

Issue144  -  
拼写应该没错了 用word都改过了，方便阅读，文中的例子我觉得还是不太了解，所以觉得可能写得不是很plausible希望大家有了解的，多多谈谈， 讲讲例子，还有什么例子更适合，谢谢大家  656 words
从2006年0月30日第一次写
从2006年8月16日 再次修改
------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? It is always controversial. Critics always play the role of evaluating the arts by special standards and discover a deep value an art may exist. However, in the final analysis, the value is created by the artists, and it is them who have brought lasting value to the world.

No doubt, critics help us interpret and understand the elite of an art. As laypersons, we are often not able to understand what meaning an art want to put out, or even what it describes. Critics are very necessary to excavate the content of the art and explain the values the art contains. Then they may further introduce us to some new notion of aesthetics. For instance, Van Gogh's great work--"Sun Flower", was almost not appreciated by anybody in his times. His contemporaries did not understand why he always describes things in “mess-up” way. It seems none of his drawings is in the pure or formal color, but in a mass of random colors. Until recently, some critics who find and further appreciate Van Gogh's works and have developed his ideas to new notion-- "Synthetism". Then Van Gogh's works are recognized by human beings who gradually realize the values of them and accept the idea--"Synthetism". From this example, we can easily find that critics often make the artist easier convey their meanings of their art to people and help people to understand and accept them. So the role of critics, in some sense, are crucial in transferring great values.

However, critics do not always judge arts correctly. Sometimes, critics are narrowly confined by the time they live, which as a result some stable standards of evaluation make them limited on evaluating something with new ideas. It often set obstacles to give the value of innovations to society. There is an example that can best illustrate that. Voltaire once rejected Shakespeare's work as barbarism because he did not conform to neo-classical principles of unity. (For another example, the esteemed critics excluded Beethoven's music which is highly appraised nowadays in their time.这个例子好像不妥，哪位大侠了解这个不妨谈谈！) Seen from these examples, we can find that critics do not always excavate the values of arts, especially ones with new notions. To the opposite, sometimes they exclude the arts that they cannot accept. So we can conclude that critics do not always promote providing something of lasting value to society.

Further, artist are the creators of the arts and it is them give the lasting value to society, which process may for a short time or for a long time. If critics are gold diggers, the arts are gold. And if artists do not create arts, how critics dig the "gold"? One famous sculpture, David made by Michelangelo is appreciated by nearly everybody who has seen it in person. The physical beauty and the feeling of strength of David are well expressed by the sculpture. People like it not because how the critics evaluate, but how they feel it after seeing in their eyes. Nice art whether valuable is not determined by the critique put by the critics. The value of the arts, will certainly come out, just regarding to how long people are able to understand them.


Though critics often value an art and help us to understand it more deeply, I still believe that it is the artist that produce the value and give it to us. As the old saying, “if you have no hand you cannot make a fist”. To the same condition, without the artists, no matter how great the critics are, there still is no value left. What is more, critics, more often than not, mislead us to understand the arts and make the value of the arts obscure to us. In the end, I hope the world will bring more opportunities to people to value the arts before the critics set any critiques to them, and that may also be an opportunity to find great artists whose value has not been realized.

[ 本帖最后由 ChunyanLi2005 于 2006-8-16 20:06 编辑 ]

braver19840112UID: 2242024

这篇文章写的太棒了,考试能写出这样的文章,我想会拿满分的

ChunyanLi2005UID: 2124266

nkbluemouseUID: 200665

------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? It is always controversial. Critics always play the role of evaluating the arts by special standards and discover a deep value an art may exist. However, in the final analysis, the value is created by the artists, and it is them who have brought lasting value to the world.

No doubt, critics help us interpret and understand the elite of an art. As laypersons, we are often not able to understand what meaning an art want to put out, or even what it describes. Critics are very necessary to excavate the content of the art and explain the values the art contains. Then they may further introduce us to some new notion of aesthetics. For instance, Van Gogh's great work--"Sun Flower", was almost not appreciated by anybody in his times. His contemporaries did not understand why he always describes things in “mess-up” way. It seems none of his drawings is in the pure or formal color, but in a mass of random colors. Until recently, some critics who find and further appreciate Van Gogh's works and have developed his ideas to new notion-- "Synthetism". Then Van Gogh's works are recognized by human beings who gradually realize the values of them and accept the idea--"Synthetism". From this example, we can easily find that critics often make the artist easier convey their meanings of their art to people and help people to understand and accept them. So the role of critics, in some sense, are crucial in transferring great values.

However, critics do not always judge arts correctly. Sometimes, critics are narrowly confined by the time they live, which as a result some stable standards of evaluation make them limited on evaluating something with new ideas. It often set obstacles to give the value of innovations to society. There is an example that can best illustrate that. Voltaire once rejected Shakespeare's work as barbarism because he did not conform to neo-classical principles of unity. (For another example, the esteemed critics excluded Beethoven's music which is highly appraised nowadays in their time.这个例子好像不妥，哪位大侠了解这个不妨谈谈！) Seen from these examples, we can find that critics do not always excavate the values of arts, especially ones with new notions. To the opposite, sometimes they exclude the arts that they cannot accept. So we can conclude that critics do not always promote providing something of lasting value to society.

Further, artist are the creators of the arts and it is them give the lasting value to society,which process may for a short time or for a long time（好像这个从句有点怪怪的噢）。If critics are gold diggers, the arts are gold. And if artists do not create arts, how critics dig the "gold"?（在举以下这个例子之前你应该把你的观点亮出来，你这样直接举例仿佛是在说这个阐述这个挖金人和金子的关系，这在逻辑上就有些不连贯了，中国人讲究循序渐进，但是英语好像不是这样的） One famous sculpture, David made by Michelangelo is appreciated by nearly everybody who has seen it in person. The physical beauty and the feeling of strength of David are well expressed by the sculpture. People like it not because how the critics evaluate, but how they feel it after seeing in their eyes. Nice art whether valuable is not determined by the critique put by the critics. The value of the arts, will certainly come out, just regarding to how long people are able to understand them.


Though critics often value an art and help us to understand it more deeply, I still believe that it is the artist that produce the value and give it to us. As the old saying, “if you have no hand you cannot make a fist”. To the same condition, without the artists, no matter how great the critics are, there still is no value left. What is more, critics, more often than not, mislead us to understand the arts and make the value of the arts obscure to us. In the end, I hope the world will bring more opportunities to people to value the arts before the critics set any critiques to them, and that may also be an opportunity to find great artists whose value has not been realized.（其实我觉得最后一段最好不要出这么长，把全文大概的总结一下就行了，这样绕来绕去显得有些和前文重复）

总体来说，逻辑上是把握了全局，但是有一些段落还是要注意先阐述再举例，否则会把你例子说明的对象弄混。个人觉得语言上有一点重复，很多话都可以合并成一句话。作文不是字数越多越好吧，语言的精简到位也是很重要的。写得还是不错的，加油！！

[ 本帖最后由 nkbluemouse 于 2006-8-16 22:47 编辑 ]

SerendipUID: 2227806

我认为层次可以调节一下你现在的结构是
critics发掘艺术－＞artists创造艺术－＞critics不能发掘艺术，我最好是吧Ｂ１和Ｂ２换一下，现让步说艺术家创造的事，还有例子很生动就是说理部分感觉太少了，而且你的Ｂ２明显太少需要再充实一下，可以讲讲艺术家的创造性什么的．

ChunyanLi2005UID: 2124266

多谢大家都来批！！！
大家的意见我一定好好吸取
继续改进！

ChunyanLi2005UID: 2124266

原帖由 Serendip 于 2006-8-16 18:47 发表
我认为层次可以调节一下你现在的结构是
critics发掘艺术－＞artists创造艺术－＞critics不能发掘艺术，我最好是吧Ｂ１和Ｂ２换一下，现让步说艺术家创造的事，还有例子很生动就是说理部分感觉太少了，而且你的Ｂ ...

我将B2和B3 进行了调整，这样是否也合理？
说实话，那部分说理，我也觉得欠缺，但是没有什么想法出来，能推荐点东西吗？