Issue144 [Jet小组] 第六次作业

滴滴雨儿UID: 2392741

题目：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.
限时只写了300+, 而且思路混乱,这篇还是自己后来修改后才敢贴出来的. 不擅长用例子, 也不会用难词, 可能看起来会比较干瘪, 只望能表达清楚观点先了.

Is the artist, or the critic, who gives society something of lasting value? I maintain that neither of them could achieve anything of significance without the other.

To begin with, I would like to redefine the key word of this issue: value. From the public point of view, a work give the majority of people the feeling of satisfaction can be called it has value. What about lasting value? It requires a work holds its value for a long time and can always meets human beings inner needs such as the pure pursuit for beauty. Because of this true meaning of lasting value, it is obvious to see that why artist or critic cannot achieve this goal with their own effort. It is a procedure that artist produces and critic introduces.

Admittedly, when people talk about art, they often turn to those universally acknowledged works such as Mona Lisa or statue of Venus. The names come into their minds are Leonardo da Vinci and Milo, the artists. It is mostly true that artists give the society something of lasting value because they indeed offer works we can see, listen or touch even after years of their firstly produced them.
This is simply because that art, a production of human creativity and sense of observation, requires certain abilities. Artist is the very person who has the ability to represent what they think and how they feel to the public. When their work of art meets the majority of people's need or even more significant, it has lasting value. This value was offer by the talented artist, not critic.

Critic, however, undeniably plays a critical role in this matter. Without their evaluations, people may not able to discover the true value of the works of art, especially when the work is so abstruse or abstracted. Even though a highly recognized outstanding work such as The Story of the Stone, which has everlasting value of study on Chinese Qing dynasty culture, cannot be so widely known without those critics’ digging job.
Besides, critic can shot the work of an artist into fame by pointing out its flaws, which often meets the public taste. Many people enjoy watching other’s work under criticize rather than admiration. This can explain why some Hollywood blockbusters earn a great box office even under severe criticize. Furthermore, even the critics fail to draw the public’s attention, they help artists making progress. Such as human nature, an artist may hardly work out any significant jobs without anybody's critic or admiration. People need to be judged. This is similar to a old Chinese saying: a witness is always the clearest. Artist may not see his or her flaw because he or she was too involved in the work. At this time, a critic often helps the most.

In conclusion, it is often the cooperation between artist and critic that gives society work of lasting value. Artist work out job with his or her own gift and afterwards, critic evaluates it with his or her own point of view. Thus we can neither say that it is the artist, nor the critic gives society something of lasting value. We may say they both do.

[ 本帖最后由 滴滴雨儿 于 2008-2-15 15:09 编辑 ]

benjamin07UID: 2310909

Is it the artist, or the critic, who gives society something of lasting value? I maintain that neither of them could achieve anything of significance without the other.

To begin with, I would like to redefine the key word of this issue: value. From the public point of view, a work giving the majority of people the feeling of satisfaction can be called having its own value. What about lasting value? It requires a work holds its value for a long time and can always meets human beings inner needs such as the pure pursuit for beauty. Because of this true meaning of lasting value, it is obvious to see that why artists or critics cannot achieve this goal without their own effort. It is a procedure that artist produces and critic introduces.

Admittedly, when people talk about arts, they often turn to those universally acknowledged works such as Mona Lisa or statue of Venus. The names come into their minds are Leonardo da Vinci and Milo, the artists. It is mostly true that artists give the society something of lasting value because they indeed offer works we can see, listen to or touch even after years of their firstly work produced t.This is simple because that art, a production of human creativity and sense of observation, requires certain abilities. Artist is the very person who has the ability to represent what they think and how they feel to the public. When their work of art meets the needs of majority or even more significantly, it has lasting value. This value was offered by the talented artist, not critic.

Critics, however, undeniably play a critical role in this matter(in what matter???). Without their evaluations, people may not able to discover the true value of the works of art, especially when the work is so abstruse or abstracted. Even though a highly recognized outstanding work such as The Story of the Stone, which has everlasting value of study on Chinese Qing dynasty culture, cannot be so widely known without those critics’ digging job.

Besides, critic can shot the work of an artist into fame by pointing out its flaws, which often meets the public taste. Many people enjoy watching other’s work under criticism rather than admiration. This can explain why some Hollywood blockbusters earn a great box office even under severe criticize. Furthermore, even critics fail to draw the public’s attention, they help artists making progress. Such as human nature, an artist may hardly work out any significant jobs without anybody's criticism or admiration. People need to be judged. This is similar to an old Chinese saying: a witness is always the clearest. Artist may not see his or her flaw because he or she was too involved in the work. At this time, a critic often helps the most.

In conclusion, it is often the cooperation between artist and critic that gives society work of lasting value. Artist work out job with his or her own gift and afterwards, critic evaluates it with his or her own point of view. Thus we can neither say that it is the artist, nor the critic gives society something of lasting value. We may say they both do.

语言方面：写的很简洁，这很好。但是若能用上一些较有深层次的词汇就会更好。写作时尽量避免一些词性错误与语法错误。 加油加油！

我本人的意见：你的观点很特殊，是两者共同给社会永恒的价值。 第一段对价值进行了定义，很好。

第二段你就开始写了一些艺术家的大作品来展现艺术家能给社会永恒的价值。  接下去你着重讨论了批评家也可以给社会永恒的价值，但是在这里你就缺乏可信度了，我读了之后很难看出批批评家也能给社会永恒的价值，没错，他们能帮助我们理解艺术家的作品，帮助挑出艺术家作品的错误，但是这怎能体现给我们社会永恒的价值呢？？？这需要考虑考虑。

滴滴雨儿UID: 2392741

^_^词性和语法错误...真不好意思..丢人了..不过敢上G场的脸皮也得厚才行吧~ ^_^
多谢指导! 在驾驭语言的能力上自己深知还差得远, 只能尽可能多靠思想和逻辑来取胜了. 至于第二段我想要原本想要表达的是评论家的评论使艺术家的作品发扬光大广而流传,这样才实现了文章开始定义的"价值"的概念:让大多数人得到满足. 不知这样说可行的通? 当然我应该再加上一句话把这个意思表述清楚的.^_^多谢提醒!