issue144 virgin ，欢迎大家猛烈排砖，另外诚征互拍者！！

perfectboyUID: 210911

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: 536          TIME: 1:34:10          DATE: 2006-3-9

The speaker states that it is not critic but the artist gives the society something of lasting value. Albeit to some extent, it is disputable admittedly, as far as I am concerned, I can hardly concede with the author, due to that he overlook the significance of the critics and overstate the importance of artist simultaneous. In my point of view, not only should we face to the critic, we must also look the artist in the right eye.

Ostensibly，without critic, there will be no real means of art. Once we live in a society which is full of artists but no critics exist, we can imagine that there will be redundant of so called art works. Everyone can enjoy the feeling of being as an artist, since whatever we do, and whatever the work is, it will be an originality of one and will definitely be an art work. Hence we are so called artist. But in the real society, such case will never happen, without any possibilities. If not, will it be valuable? What I can see is the only possibility that all such will be priceless. It is only with the critics that contribute to real art.

However, only critics will do nothing of lasting value. The critic’s duty, if any, is to criticize the workings, but not invent the works. Since hey are unable to invent. They cannot replace the artist. For instance, in the mediaeval Europe, there are numerous great artists with high reputation, such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Mozart and so forth with plenty of works--great paintings and carvings, majestic constructions, fantastic poems, melodies and so forth. Even till now, lots of their works are still known by us and have profound impact on our life. The leaning tower of Pisa is still a well-known scenery and a construction in use. And Beethoven's symphonies are still being played and displayed in many spaces. Mona Lisa of Da Vinci is an invaluable paintings now, and Michelangelo’s great carving are still of high popularity. So we see that the artist gives us works of lasting value, but not the critics.

As a matter of fact, not only critics but artists also contribute to the real art. They interact each other. Without critics, there will not be such great innovations as I mentioned above. Because the critics can point out the flaws directly. And with the suggestions of them, the artist can hence make rectifications, and after numbers of amending, a certain great art work is then alive. Without the critics, the artist may feel nothing but happy with their work. But as everyone knows, nothing is perfect, what we can do is to be more proximate to the best or perfection. It is easy to judge, that all great work are being great only after many corrections, without such, it will never be a great work of real art.

To sum up, neither will do great job only. The critics and the artist must be interdependent to each, if not, nothing will have lasting value. So I think the author overemphasized the importance of the artist, and overestimate the significance of the critics in the meantime.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-3-11 19:10 编辑 ]

perfectboyUID: 210911

为什么没人拍啊？郁闷
太打消我积极性了..........
帮别人平过了也不理我.........

Gardenia-2005UID: 2135942

批得比较狠，请见谅哦
The speaker states that it is not critic but the artist gives the society something of lasting value. Albeit to some extent, it is disputable admittedly, as far as I am concerned, I can hardly concede with the author, due to that he overlook the significance of the critics and overstate the importance of artist simultaneous. In my point of view, not only should we face to the critic, we must also look the artist in the right eye.

Ostensibly，without critic, there will be no real means of art. Once we live in a society which is full of artists but no critics exist, we can imagine that there will be redundant of so called art works. Everyone can enjoy the feeling of being as an artist, since whatever we do, and whatever the work is, it will be an originality of one and will definitely be an art work.Hence we are so called artist. But in the real society, such case will never happen, without any possibilities. If not, will it be valuable? What I can see is the only possibility that all such will be priceless. It is only with the critics that contribute to real art.有点自说自话的感觉，作者作的假设没有任何意义，先假设一番没有评论家，人人都能成为艺术家，又说其实这是不可能的，所以推出评论家很重要，缺乏例证，楼主要说没有评论家作品就不会有价值，为什么不会有价值，评论家作了什么让它有价值，作者的文风很有感情但太过晦涩
However, only critics will do nothing of lasting value. 汗，还有这一句，人家题目中说的就是评论家与创造永久价值无关，楼主在第一段也很清楚的表明自己不同意题目的观点，而且用hardly concede表示连让步都没有，但是这一段的ts又跟题目的观点没有什么区别，这不是自相矛盾吗The critic’s duty, if any, is to criticize the workings, but not invent the works. Since hey they are unable to invent. They cannot replace the artist. For instance, in the mediaeval Europe there are numerous great artists with high reputation, such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Mozart and so forth with plenty of works--great paintings and carvings, majestic constructions, fantastic poems, melodies and so forth. Even till now, lots of their works are still known by us and have profound impact on our life. The leaning tower of Pisa is still a well-known scenery and a construction in use. And Beethoven's symphonies are still being played and displayed in many spaces. Mona Lisa of Da Vinci is an invaluable paintings now, and Michelangelo’s great carving are still of high popularity. So we see that the artist gives us works of lasting value, but not the critics.

As a matter of fact, not only critics but artists also contribute to the real art. 楼主在看一下题目，人家说的是lasting value，跟real art没有关系啊They interact each other. Without critics, there will not be such great innovations as I mentioned above. Because the critics can point out the flaws directly. And with the suggestions of them, the artist can hence make rectifications, and after numbers of amending, a certain great art work is then alive. Without the critics, the artist may feel nothing but happy with their work. But as everyone knows, nothing is perfect, what we can do is to be more proximate to the best or perfection. It is easy to judge, that all great work are being great only after many corrections, without such, it will never be a great work of real art.

To sum up, neither will do great job only. The critics and the artist must be interdependent to each, if not, nothing will have lasting value. So I think the author overemphasized the importance of the artist, and overestimate the significance of the critics in the meantime.
最后一段总算把作者的思路搞清楚了，先说没有评论家就不会有具有永恒价值的作品，然后由说是艺术家给了社会具有永恒价值的作品，不过这样一来不就等于同意题目的观点吗？看一下第三段的最后的结论句： So we see that the artist gives us works of lasting value, but not the critics，在看一下题目：It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value." 这两句话有区别吗？
可能我批得狠了点，如有不对 请多多原谅，不过这篇文章确实需要大大改动

perfectboyUID: 210911

非常谢谢你的猛拍，偶想表达的观点是两者需要并存，缺一不可的，正文首段写没有critic不行，2段写只有critic，没有artist不行，说明必须得有artist去创造，3段说两者相互影响。以上是我的outline，可能是由于表达不清的缘故？请续拍，多谢哦！

daidai_4UID: 2194147

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: 536          TIME: 1:34:10          DATE: 2006-3-9

The speaker states that it is not critic but the artist gives the society something of lasting value. Albeit to some extent, it is disputable  disputable意思是有争议的  reasonable to some extent admittedly, as far as I am concerned, I can hardly concede with concede 没见这么用的 不如直接说agree with the author, due to that he overlook the significance of the critics and overstate the importance of artist simultaneous. In my point of view, not only should we face to  face to ??the critic, we must also look the artist in the right eye.

Ostensibly，without critic critics, there will be no real means of art . Once we live in a society which is full of artists but no   without any critics exist, we can imagine that there will be redundant of so called art works. Everyone can enjoy the feeling of being as an artist, since whatever we do, and whatever the work is, it will be an originality of one and will definitely be an art work. Hence we are so called artist. But in the real society, such case will never happen, without any possibilities. If not, will it be valuable? What I can see is the only possibility that all such will be priceless. It is only with the critics that contribute to real art.

However, only critics will do nothing of lasting value. The critic’s duty, if any, is to criticize the workings, but not invent the works. Since hey are unable to invent. They cannot replace the artist. For instance, in the mediaeval Europe, there are numerous great artists with high reputation, such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Mozart and so forth with plenty of works--great paintings and carvings, majestic constructions, fantastic poems, melodies and so forth. Even till now, lots of their works are still known by us and have profound impact on our life. The leaning tower of Pisa is still a well-known scenery and a construction in use. And Beethoven's symphonies are still being played and displayed in many spaces. Mona Lisa of Da Vinci is an invaluable paintings now, and Michelangelo’s great carving are still of high popularity. So we see that the artist gives us works of lasting value, but not the critics.

As a matter of fact, not only critics but artists also contribute to the real art. They interact each other. Without critics, there will not be such great innovations as I mentioned above. Because the critics can point out the flaws directly. And with the suggestions of them, the artist can hence make rectifications, and after numbers of amending, a certain great art work is then alive. Without the critics, the artist may feel nothing but happy with their work. But as everyone knows, nothing is perfect, what we can do is to be more proximate to the best or perfection. It is easy to judge, that all great work are being great only after many corrections, without such, it will never be a great work of real art.

To sum up, neither will do great job only. The critics and the artist must be interdependent to each, if not, nothing will have lasting value. So I think the author overemphasized the importance of the artist, and overestimate the significance of the critics in the meantime.

有朋友批过了哦
你的语言看起来有点费劲 不过是第一篇没关系 你要是看了我的第一篇有信心大增了 我都不忍心回首再看那 给人狠批了一顿但受益菲浅
以后的我再帮你批