issue144 艺术类 机经题 第一次发帖 赏个脸拍一下！

ironcatUID: 2119178

issue144 "It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value."

Is it the case that the artists, not the critics, give society something of lasting vale, as the statement argued? In my point of view, I totally agree with the statement that it is not the critics but the artists who produce something of lasting value to the society, although the critics has some important functions.

Turning first to the critics, who provide at least three functions about art. On one hand, the critics could help laypersons understand and interpret the art. A critic, who is familiar with a well-known artist and his or her art works, may have certain insight about these works, while the laypersons cannot. On the other hand, critics' evaluations of the art work can serve as a filter, which helps us determine which art works are worth our time and attention. For example, a new book wrote by a well-selling author might not be an inspired works again, and if the critic calls our attention to this fact, we could save more time to search for another literature worthwhile. Thirdly, a critic can provide feedback to the artist, and constructive criticism, if taken to heart, will result in better works.

However, it is not to say that it is just the critics who endow those works with lasting value. The artists express the emotion such as hope, despair, and enthusiasm through their works. The critics can show their personal opinion about these works, but I must point out that even the layperson can also hold their own ideas about those artistic works. In the art realm, not like in the science field, there is no existing ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The value is not exhibited by the critique of the critics but in the art works themselves. For example, the works of the abstractionist such as Picasso can be understood by different people with different angles and views. The critique from the critics can not be enough and necessary to define the value of these abstractions.

Furthermore, in some cases, the critics sometimes even played a role to hinder the populace to realize and appreciate the value of a excellent art works, but even in such situations, the real value of a outstanding art works can not be obscured by current mainstream critique. In other words, the critics can even play a negative role on art works, and the true valuable works can also display its lasting value some day in the future. The best examples is the famous Dutch painter, Van Gogh, whose works can not be recognized by the current well-known critics for a rather long time, and the talent painter suicide after a long time struggle with the depression. But after his death for some years, his works are recognized by the public eventually, and three of his works are among the most expensive ten paintings in the world.

In sum, the critics indeed have their own function in the society, but they can not replace the position of the artists and they sometimes even prevent the people from recognizing a valuable art works. Only the artists not the critics can give the society something of lasting value through their excellent art works.

ironcatUID: 2119178

虽然很烂，但自己顶一下。

staralwaysUID: 193479

"It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value."

Is it the case that the artists, not the critics, give society something of lasting vale, as the statement argued? In my point of view, I totally agree with the statement that it is not the critics but the artists who produce something of lasting value to the society, although the critics has some important functions. [开头提出观点很明确。]

Turning first to the critics, who provide at least three functions about art. On one hand, the critics could help laypersons understand and interpret the art. A critic, who is familiar with a well-known artist and his or her art works, may have certain insight about these works, while the laypersons cannot. On the other hand, critics' evaluations of the art work can serve as a filter, which helps us determine which art works are worth our time and attention. For example, a new book wrote by a well-selling author might not be an inspired works again, and if the critic calls our attention to this fact, we could save more time to search for another literature worthwhile. [这里缺乏例子的“真实感”。] Thirdly, a critic can provide feedback to the artist, and constructive criticism, if taken to heart, will result in better works. [段落结尾处可以考虑做一个小结。]

However, it is not to say that it is just the critics who endow those works with lasting value. The artists express the emotion such as hope, despair, and enthusiasm through their works. The critics can show their personal opinion about these works, but I must point out that even the layperson can also hold their own ideas about those artistic works. In the art realm, not like in the science field, there is no existing ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The value is not exhibited by the critique of the critics but in the art works themselves. For example, the works of the abstractionist such as Picasso can be understood by different people with different angles and views. [觉得可以再深入点，举个具体点的例子，不然感觉有点浮在表面上。] The critique from the critics cannot be enough and necessary to define the value of these abstractions.

Furthermore, in some cases, the critics sometimes even played a role to hinder the populace to realize and appreciate the value of an excellent art works, but even in such situations, the real value of a outstanding art works cannot be obscured by current mainstream critique. In other words, the critics can even play a negative role on art works, and the true valuable works can also display its lasting value some day in the future. The best examples is the famous Dutch painter, Van Gogh, whose works can not be recognized by the current well-known critics for a rather long time, and the talent painter suicide after a long time struggle with the depression. But after his death for some years, his works are recognized by the public eventually, and three of his works are among the most expensive ten paintings in the world.

In sum, the critics indeed have their own function in the society, but they cannot replace the position of the artists and they sometimes even prevent the people from recognizing a valuable art works. Only the artists not the critics can give the society something of lasting value through their excellent art works.

感觉这篇文章从“artists”的角度来论述的还不够点，另外对于题目里的“lasting value”还可以再加强回应。