Issue144 April作文小组第四周第二次作业

gingerleeUID: 2454321

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: 575          TIME: 00:50:00          DATE: 2008-3-17 /4-822:12:57

In the statement, the speaker claims that it is the artist rather than the critic who brings something that has lasting value to the society. While I concede that the high quality of works themselves by artists can show its everlasting value, certain critics can also discover the value of the artists who are not being noticed by the public. Thus, we cannot neglect the significant position of critics.

To begin with, artists themselves play a important role in whether their works are attractive to others make them household name. It is because the high artistic quality of works by these artists can endure critiques from various people over the span of history that their work can enjoy lasting value in the society. Consider these examples, Michelangelo’s great talent in painting murals make the Pope notice. Also, the Europe monarchs discovery Mozart’s greatness in music by granting their generous commissions. However, will these excellent artists being noticed without such extraordinary ability? Of course, not.

Although artists are equipped with abilities that would make their works lasting value, without the justifiable comments by critics, some artists will not catch the public’s attention. Besides, there is no denying that some great artists- such as writers, musicians, filmmakers and so forth-have given society something of lasting value. And how can they show their affection to the society? And in which way do they demonstrate their value? Truly, it's their real ability have conquer the public. In my opinion, however, what can not be neglected is that the critics who evaluate these artists' works have played a significant role in giving society something of lasting value.

We can not emphasize the importance of critics too much nowadays. Just imagine if there are no critics nowadays. Harry Porter, the extraordinary novel could not have a enormous number of fans from children to adults as nowadays. Forrest Gump, the Oscar film, could not become the box office hit and accept comparable praise. Beethoven, the talented musician, may still remain unnoted. It is critic that makes a brief introduction of mysterious plot in Harry Porter firstly, which triggered the curiosity of the readers. It is critic that make a exact comment on Forrest Gump depicting that this a excellent film demonstrating the real American's value. It's critic that give a high evaluation and praised Beethoven.

In addition, critics are those who have expertise knowledge in their own fields so that  they can have an overall and much more objective comments than the public who just have only interests in the works of artists. Therefore, critics can lead the public to the way of having a better understanding of certain works and naturally, some individuals can also become the critics when they are familiar with one artistic field. What’s more, the view and comments from the critics and even the publics can determine the value and achievement of the artists. Which means the critic would give the society something of lasting value.

In sum, talent of the artists and the value of their work are both of importance, since no one would notice the works without value and high quality. But on the other hand, diamond in the sand need the help from other people to disclose it. And critics are the right explorers to discover the new land just as Colombo made a discovery of North America. That’s why I hold that critics have cardinal effect on giving society the lasting value.