144[Jet小组]第六次作业

ellefrancaiUID: 2449693

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.
WORDS: 556

People are always arguing about how the value of art can be admitted  by the public and someone will evaluate the contribution of critics. Actually, I do not think we should put critics on a high position since hardly could the critics of the same era rightly evaluate works of art for several limitations they have of their own, which could scarcely be broken. Hence, I am greatly agreed with the point of view presented above that 'It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.'. However, critics can also give society pieces of works with lasting value in some occasions.

For certain, artists gives society some master pieces of lasting value. Unfortunately to artists, most of them suffered a poor and hard life when they were alive and most of all, their works can seldom be evaluated by the critics at that time, even less the public. The two famous examples are Vincent Van Gogh and Rembrandt. The former is one of the most well-known impressionist painters as we all know now, and his sunflowers were auctioned on a very high price recent years. But in his life time, the only painting that he sold out was just a sketch. Moreover, Cezanne said he was ashamed to put his works together with Van Gogh's in a painting exhibition. Rembrant was ruined by the most famous work of himself named ‘Nightwatching, just because he did not draw the soldiers in the same way as other painter in his time does. And the critics did not know the value of these master pieces until they died.

However, critics can sometimes figure out the value of art at the first time, especially for movies. We nowadays often take a look at what critics said about the movie before we go to cinema. And directors of movies gain their occupation from critics, such as the Chinese world-known dirctor Zhang Yimou etc..Furthermore, critics can also create something of lasting value. To take Socrates into example, he had a famous dialogue discussing what the beauty is, according to 'The Republic' by Plato. He criticized some kind of beauty and even cannot make a conclosion and find the answer in the end of the discussion, but no one can deny that it is a master piece of works of critic.

It is no doubt that artists need critics to make them known to the world, otherwise, their valuable works cannot be evaluated by people. Critics introduce artists to the public which provide a chance for artists to show their works of art to society. Listeria Monocytogenes gave the genius pianist Chopin a chance to replace himself to play piano to the public on the stage, which let the public know the genius youngster. It can hardly imagine that we would lose such a pianist if Chopin has not got this chance. We can see from this legend What critics can do to artists as well as society.

In sum, it is for sure that artists give society something of lasting value and our lives are much more colorful thanks to them as well as the culture and mankind. But critics are not those who always cannot see the real value of art, they can make their own contribution to society in many ways as I presented above.

ilabcUID: 2298724

People are always arguing about how the value of art can be admitted  by the public and someone will evaluate the contribution of critics. Actually, I do not think we should put critics on a high position since hardly could the critics of the same era rightly evaluate works of art for several limitations they have of their own, which could scarcely be broken. Hence, I am greatly agreed with the point of view presented above that 'It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.'. However, critics can also give society pieces of works with lasting value in some occasions.

For certain, artists gives society some master pieces of lasting value. Unfortunately to artists, most of them suffered a poor and hard life when they were alive and most of all, their works can seldom be evaluated by the critics at that time, even less the public. The two famous examples are Vincent Van Gogh and Rembrandt. The former is one of the most well-known impressionist painters(去掉painters) as we all know now, and his sunflowers were auctioned on a very high price recent years. But in his life time, the only painting that he sold out was just a sketch. Moreover, Cezanne said he was ashamed to put his works together with Van Gogh's in a painting exhibition. Rembrant was ruined by the most famous work of himself named ‘Nightwatching, just because he did not draw the soldiers in the same way as other painter in his time does. And the critics did not know the value of these master pieces until they died.

However, critics can sometimes figure out the value of art at the first time, especially for movies. We nowadays often take a look at what critics said about the movie before we go to cinema. And directors of movies gain their occupation from critics, such as the Chinese world-known dirctor Zhang Yimou etc..Furthermore, critics can also create something of lasting value. To take Socrates into example, he had a famous dialogue discussing what the beauty is, according to 'The Republic' by Plato. He criticized some kind of beauty and even cannot make a conclosion and find the answer in the end of the discussion, but no one can deny that it is a master piece of works of critic.

It is no doubt that artists need critics to make them known to the world, otherwise, their valuable works cannot be evaluated by people. Critics introduce artists to the public which provide a chance for artists to show their works of art to society. Listeria Monocytogenes gave the genius pianist Chopin a chance to replace himself to play piano to the public on the stage, which let the public know the genius youngster. It can hardly imagine that we would lose such a pianist if Chopin has not got this chance. We can see from this legend What critics can do to artists as well as society.

In sum, it is for sure that artists give society something of lasting value and our lives are much more colorful thanks to them as well as the culture and mankind. But critics are not those who always cannot see the real value of art, they can make their own contribution to society in many ways as I presented above.

例子很丰富，没有明显的语法错误
第一段的话有点绕，你先说不要过高评价critics，是artist create art，然后又however，critics can also give society pieces of works with lasting value in some occasions. 让人觉得你对critics到底是什么态度不清楚。
critics can also create something of lasting value. 我觉得当批评家有所创造的时候他就是艺术家。而且你后面的例子中把3大哲人中的2个归做批评家我十分不赞同。

其他都很好，以上是个人意见。

benjamin07UID: 2310909

People are always arguing about how the value of art can be admitted by the public and someone will evaluate the contribution of critics. Actually, I do not think we should put critics on a high position since hardly could the critics of the same era rightly evaluate works of art for several limitations they have of their own, which could scarcely be broken（什么意思）. Hence, I  greatly agreed with the point of view presented above that 'It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.'.（我觉得改一下比较好） However, critics can also give society pieces of works with lasting value in some occasions.
开头段太长了， 开头是文章的门面，需要回应有力，准确，你显得太冗长，并且表达有些模糊。我觉得简洁有力才是门道，否则就会弄巧成拙。（本人的意见，不要见外）
For certain, artists gives society some master pieces of lasting value（TS). Unfortunately to artists, most of them suffered a poor and hard life when they were alive and most of all, their works can seldom be evaluated by the critics at that time, even less by the public. The two famous examples are Vincent Van Gogh and Rembrandt. The former is one of the most well-known impressionist painters as we all know now, and his sunflowers were auctioned on a very high price recent years. But in his life time, the only painting that he sold out was just a sketch. Moreover, Cezanne said he was ashamed to put his works together with Van Gogh's in a painting exhibition. Rembrant was ruined by the most famous work of himself named ‘Nightwatching, just because he did not draw the soldiers in the same way as other painter in his time does. And the critics did not know the value of these master pieces until they died.( TS之后的展开论述有点离题，虽然你介绍了Van Gogh and Tembrandt 的大作品，但是阐述的都是他们不愉快地遭遇，为什么要这么陈述？？能不能解释一下？？）

However, critics can sometimes figure out the value of art at the first time, especially for movies. We nowadays often take a look at what critics said about the movie before we go to cinema. And directors of movies gain their occupation from critics, such as the Chinese world-known dirctor Zhang Yimou etc..Furthermore, critics can also create something of lasting value. Take Socrates for example, he had a famous dialogue discussing what the beauty is, according to 'The Republic' by Plato. He criticized some kind of beauty and even could not make a conclusion and found the answer at the end of the discussion, but no one can deny that it is a master piece of works of critic.

It is no doubt that artists need critics to make them known to the world, otherwise, their valuable works cannot be evaluated by people. Critics introduce artists to the public which provide a chance for artists to show their works of art to society. Listeria Monocytogenes gave the genius pianist Chopin a chance to replace himself to play piano to the public on the stage, which let the public know the genius youngster. It can hardly imagine that we would lose such a pianist if Chopin has not got this chance. We can see from this legend what critics can do to artists as well as to society.

In sum, it is for sure that artists give society something of lasting value and our lives are much more colorful thanks to them as well as the culture and mankind. But critics are not those who always cannot see the real value of art, they can make their own contribution to society in many ways as I presented above.