Issue144 [Mettle 7.22] by werecat

werecatUID: 2289296

"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.

Is it the artists who endow the society with something of lasting value? Or does critics give society permanent valueable things actually? This is a controversy which lasts for a long time and comes to no definite conclusion. In my point of view, each of them has contributed his own power to the society, for artists, their donations are the lasting artifacts, while for critics, theirs are the precise and concise assessments.

Most people would agree that it is the artists who discover the true beauty and then illustrate them by means of the artistries. Painters are keen on observing the poetic yet usual scenes, then paintings of various types when presented to the public. Impressionists were painters focused on the elegant relationship between light and shadow, their talented eyes discovered the essence and intrinsic values of shade which was otherwise normal and useless in the eyes of the public, then, their dexterous brushes and pens limned these fantastic scenes on the canvas. Since then, common people were able to spectate the world in a brand new angle of view. Composers are endowed with the ability to transform visual landscapes into audio chapters. Famous and grandiose as he was, Beethoven was deafed in the peak of his career, however, such disables can not hamper him from composing the eternal musics. Therefore, it is obvious that artists left us with their awesome and flamboyant performances of traits and values.

However, in my judgement, many people unconsicously or intentedly ignored the importance of critics. As a critic, his major duty is to evaluate works of art, such as novels, films, music and paintings. Because of this definition, critics are always partially viewed as only quibblers. However, we must not neglect the possitive effects of their evaluations as well. DIsinterested speaking, many critics are nothing but qualified in their vocations, their comments are well worth listening to. Many young or peripheral artists who can not attract the attention themselves are always rocketed overnight after several effulent recommendation of arbitrary critics. In such sense, the critics salvage something of lasting-value from submerging. Moreover, many avant-garde artists are too unique to be comprehended by ordinary people. Their works tend to be too involuted and implicating, in such cases, critics may have the responsibility to explain and simplify the artists' opinions to common people, hence the values of these artifacts would be more widely appreciated and accpeted. In other words, these works become more valuable after the re-explanation and analysis of the critics.

In conclusion, artists and critics both have their own duties and advantages, artists are destined to demonstrate the essence and true beauty of nature while critics may introduce and guide the public through the voyage of the art palace.

imagic80UID: 2342633

Issue144 [Mettle 7.22] by werecat

"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.

Is it the artists who endow the society with something of lasting value? Or does critics give society permanent valueable things actually?[由提问开头最常用，似乎所有的题目都可以用这种方式开头。考试时想不去开头，就马上抛出几个提问好了，哈哈] This is a controversy which lasts for a long time and comes to no definite conclusion. In my point of view, each of them has contributed his own power to[contribute……power to 没有见过这种方式] the society, for artists, their donations[donation 不恰当吧] are the lasting artifacts, while for critics, theirs are the precise and concise[不一定简洁吧？] assessments.

Most people would agree that it is the artists who discover the true beauty and then illustrate them by means of the artistries. Painters are keen on observing the poetic yet usual scenes, then paintings of various types when presented to the public[这句话有点问题]. Impressionists were painters focused on the elegant relationship between light and shadow, their talented eyes discovered the essence and intrinsic values of shade which was otherwise normal and useless in the eyes of the public, then, their dexterous brushes and pens limned these fantastic scenes on the canvas. Since then, common people were able to spectate the world in a brand new angle of view. Composers are endowed with the ability to transform visual landscapes into audio chapters. Famous and grandiose as he was, Beethoven was deafed in the peak of his career, however, such disables can not hamper him from composing the eternal musics. Therefore, it is obvious that artists left us with their awesome and flamboyant performances of traits and values.[讲了几种艺术家的创作，但是总感觉有点缺乏力度]

However, in my judgement, many people unconsicously or intentedly ignored the importance of critics. As a critic, his major duty is to evaluate works of art, such as novels, films, music and paintings. Because of this definition, critics are always partially viewed as only quibblers.[这个观点很好] However, we must not neglect the possitive effects of their evaluations as well. DIsinterested speaking, many critics are nothing but qualified in their vocations, their comments are well worth listening to. Many young or peripheral artists who can not attract the attention themselves are always rocketed overnight after several effulent recommendation of arbitrary critics. In such sense, the critics salvage something of lasting-value from submerging. Moreover, many avant-garde artists are too unique to be comprehended by ordinary people. Their works tend to be too involuted and implicating, in such cases, critics may have the responsibility to explain and simplify the artists' opinions to common people, hence the values of these artifacts would be more widely appreciated and accpeted. In other words, these works become more valuable after the re-explanation and analysis of the critics.[有时是艺术的伯乐，还是大众的审美指导]

In conclusion, artists and critics both have their own duties and advantages, artists are destined to demonstrate the essence and true beauty of nature while critics may introduce and guide the public through the voyage of the art palace.

文章简单，层次清晰。就是觉得语言不太流畅。