.

JianchuanUID: 2121431

.

elvazhang1022UID: 208363

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.

Is it the artist who gives society something of lasting value? In my opinion, I generally agree with this issue. AN artist plays a more important role in the creation of long-lasting value while a critic also plays a role that is indispensable for the art. And I contend that the role an artist plays overweighs the one a critic plays.

I first turn to the function of artists. I believe that artists should create their work independent from any critic, because art is a subjective realm. It will be easily disturbed by artist's emotion, which, in turn, is easily affected by critics. History is replete of ample examples demonstrating that artistry is ruined by critics. For instance, G. Bizet, a French composer, who died at an early age, vividly illustrated this point. In his life, he planned to compose about 20 operas, only a few of which were completed. His death closely followed the failure of Carmen(恕我无知，这人是谁啊？和G.B.有什么关系啊？这个例子似乎没有right on target), which, ironically, was very popular today, but not accepted in his life time. Moreover, many great works were created in solitude from critics. For example, J. S. Bach, the father of music, whose works are played all over the world nowadays, wrote most of his Cantatas which even are not planned to be played twice. During his whole life he was constrained in a very small area, and his works were not even in the sight of critics. Thus, their contribution to music art was totally irrelevant from critics.

However, critics, as counterpart of artists(critics和artists是counterpart的关系吗？),does not pale in importance to artist, at least, to some extant. First, critics are representative for the demand of public. So if an artist intends to inform his art to the majority, he should first consider the opinions from critics(艺术家进行艺术创作到底应该忠于自己还是迎合大众？). Second, the basic criteria posed by critics are objective and mutually coherent(这个不一定吧？), although admittedly some personal critique differs from each other. Following the general rule is almost always beneficial. For example, a writer should always be required to construct(这个词是不是有点大啊？) his article in a method in which  it is easy for readers to comprehend, unless he just wrote the piece for himself. Meanwhile, a musician should always pay significant attention to score composers wrote. A performance given not according to the score should not be considered as an adequate one.

It is interesting to consider what would be logically deduced if we assume that, it is a critic, not an artist, who gives society something of lasting value. At first glance this argument is initially ridiculous. It is also implausible to assume that artists and critics together create the works. As I discussed above, great works already exist before they confront with critics. M. Proust's Remembrance of Things Past should perfectly support my point. Mr. Proust spend 15 years away from normal social life, thus his work could not encounter critics before public, because of his disease, but what he presented to the society is one of the greatest novels in 20th century. After the publication of Remembrance he gained fame from the critics and till now his novel is considered as a classic by both critics and readers. To sum up, although I admitted that a critic plays a role, this role should not be overrated; otherwise it will be unfair for those who really create the works.

In sum, I agree with the speaker that the lasting value is given by artists - after all, they do the creative work - not by critics. But critics also play an important role in the process of creation.

我的意见：
1.文章的第二和第三段似乎是自相矛盾的：I believe that artists should create their work independent from any critic.（第二段第一句）So if an artist intends to inform his art to the majority, he should first consider the opinions from critics（第三段第二句）
2.第二段的例子似乎不能很好的证明这段的论点
3.有点不明白第四段放在那作用是什么呢？
anyway,加油！

weiweizhuUID: 179352

Is it the artist who gives society something of lasting value? In my opinion, I generally agree with this issue. Artist plays a more important role in the creating of long-last value while critic also plays a role that is indispensable from the art. And I contend that the role artist plays overweighs the one critic plays.（开头观点表现得很鲜明但是语言不是很突出）

I first turn to the function of artist. I believe that artist should create their work independent from any critic, because art is a subjective realm（具体点，the reflection of artists‘ soal）. It will be easily disturbed （这个词？？）by artist's emotion, which, in turn, is easy affected by critic. History is replete of ample（重复了吧） examples that artistry is ruined by critics. For instance, G. Bizet, a French composer, who died in his early age, vividly illustrated this point. In his life, he planned to compose about 20 operas, only a few of which were completed. His death closely followed the failure of Carmen, which, ironically, was very popular today, but not accepted in his life time. Moreover, many great works were created in solitude from critics. For example, J. S. Bach, the father of music, whose works are played all over the world nowadays, wrote most of his Cantatas not even planned to be played twice. During his whole life he was constrained in a very small area, and his works were not even in the sight of critics. Thus, their contribution to music art was totally irrelevant from critics.（你得例子举的不错，但是要突出critic得损害作用）

However, critics, as counterpart of artists, does not pale in importance to artist, at least, to some extant.（你前后观点变得太快了） First, critics are representative for the demand of public. So if an artist intends to inform his art to the majority, he should first consider the opinions from critics. Second, the basic criteria posed by critics are objective and mutually coherent, although admittedly some personal critique differs from each other. Following the general rule is almost always beneficial. For example, a writer should always be required to construct his article in a method in which readers are easy to comprehend, unless he just wrote the piece for himself. Meanwhile, a musician should always pay significant attention to score composers wrote. A performance given not according to the score should not be considered as an adequate one. （你这段不错但是觉得你整篇文章的顺序有点问题）
It is interesting to consider what would logically deduced if we assume that, it is critic, not artist, who gives society something of lasting value. At first glance this argument is initially ridiculous. It is also implausible to assume that artist and critic together create the value. As I discussed above, great works already exist before they confront with critics. M. Proust's Remembrance of Things Past should perfectly support my point. Mr. Proust spend 15 years away from normal social life, thus his work could not encounter critics before public, because of his disease, but what he presented to the society is one of the greatest novels in 20th century. After the publication of Remembrance he gained fame from the critic and till now his novel is considered as a classic by both critics and readers. （这个例子太长）To sum up, although I admitted critic plays a role, this role should not be overrated; otherwise it will be unfair for those who really create the work.

In sum, I agree with the speaker that the lasting value is given by artists - after all, they do the creative work - not by critics. But critics also play an important role in the process of creation.

(indispensable, overweigh, irrelevant, importance, representative, criteria, comprehend, performance, ridiculous, before, remembrance, disease)

PS：你是学音乐的吗，懂得好多音乐家的名字哦
还有这篇文章顺序有点乱
先说评论家不好，再说好，最后说不要
而且都是与音乐家的关系来说明。

我觉得是不是单独说说各自啊