Issue144 艺术家与评论家，觉得写不错，761words

echostateUID：194935

Issue144  
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：45分2秒     761 words
从2005年7月13日13时59分到2005年7月13日14时45分
------题目------
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.
------正文------
Who brings the world something of the eternal value? The artists? Or the critics? Albeit I concede that critics indeed exert some functions towards the artist works, such as explaining, evaluating as well as suggesting, most of people should realize that it is the artist, not the critic, gives our society something about "lasting" value.

First and foremost, the first function of critics is that they explain the meaning of art work and help the masses gain a better understanding of these works. Here I concede that this funciton sometimes creates some kinds of worth for the society. For instance, when it comes to film industry, the critics can bring the film ideal box office, which can be deemed as some sorts of value. To witness this point, one need only to look around at the famous film, "The Lord of Ring". However, this function, in my opinions, has nothing to do with the permanent value. In fact, the lasting value of a masterwork originates from the great work itself, and never depends on the critics' explanation and propagation to attain its success. One telling example for this perspective involves Kant and the well-known book "The Critique of Pure Reasoning". So obscure as this masterpiece that even the coeval philosophers could not comprehend or accept it, let along the coexistent critics. Yet it is not to say that this great work would lose its lasting value. In reality, nowadays this celebrated book has turn out to be an must-read book for people who want to investigate philosophy. In short, although critics' explanation and propagation can produce some kinds of value, it has nothing to do with so-called "lasting value".

In the second place, critics exert certain influence on art work in form of evaluation and perform the role as a filter in our society. Nonetheless, their evaluations still can not produce any eternal value for our community. Here I concede that critics have more solid background than the masses, in their own fields. Whereas, common sense tells us that, in the realm of art, masterpiece often come from the emotion, imagination, creativity, originality, and passion of artists. In this sense, the professional knowledge is not the key factor to judge the achievement of one great work. As a result, history is replete with the cases that critics regard some masterworks as common and even third-class ones. For instance, the story of Monet and his world-famous work "Impression: Sunrise" immediately comes to mind. The critic who attended the show in which Monet exhibit his paintings did not understand and appreciate this "strange" work at all. Further, in his nasty review of the show, this critic wrote "Even the wallpaper in its initial state is much more finished than this landscape" and called Monet and his friends as "Impressionists". What is ironical is that just this ridicule gave Monet and his circle a perfect label for their powerful and unrestrained style. To be brief, it is clear that most critics appraise the art work in a way that can not promote any kind of lasting value.

In the third place, as for me, the other function of critics, that is returning some comments and suggestions to artists so as to accelerate the growth of these artists, are still unrelated to any sort of long-lasting value, if not appears as an limitation. As we mentioned above, masters such as Monet and Kant are so outstanding that they have outclassed their coeval community quite a lot. Nevertheless, the critics, who can be judges as the representation of the contemporary society, certainly are not able to keep up with the pace of those masters. In this sense, their response for the art works, in most cases, performs as an restriction of the imagination, creativity, and originality of the great artists. One illustration shedding light on my point is the eighth symphony of Beethoven. It is universally acknowledged that, among Beethoven' works, bring little dedication. In fact, it is the comments of the coexistent critics who have suggested that Beethoven should return to the classic style of Haydn and Mozart driven the great man in this dilemma. In other words, the review of critics, do stand in the way of the growth of talented artist, rather facilitate their advancement.

To sum up, albeit critics indeed exert some influence on artists and their works, and these effects sometimes create certain value, there is no where more unreasonable on the allegation that these critics have bring our community some sorts of permanent value.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-14 at 18:08 ]

foreveraUID：202035

Who brings the world something of the eternal value? The artists? Or the critics? Albeit I concede that critics indeed exert some functions towards the artist这里应该用artistic吧? works, such as explaining, evaluating as well as suggesting, most of people should realize that it is the artist, not the critic, gives our society something about "lasting" value.很经典的开头,学习ing....

First and foremost很好的短语,收藏之, the first function of critics is that they explain the meaning of art work and help the masses gain a better understanding of these works. Here I concede that this funciton sometimes creates some kinds of worth for the society. For instance, when it comes to film industry, the critics can bring the film ideal box office, which can be deemed as 闪闪发光啊some sorts of value. To witness this point,one need only to look around at the famous film, "The Lord of Ring". 这里似乎展开好一点?However, this function, in my opinions, has nothing to do with the permanent value. In fact, the lasting value of a masterwork originates from the great work itself, and never depends on the critics' explanation and propagation to attain its success. One telling example for this perspective involves Kant and the well-known book "The Critique of Pure Reasoning". So obscure as this masterpiece that even the  coeval philosophers could not comprehend or accept it, let along the coexistent critics. Yet it is not to say that this great work would lose its lasting value. In reality, nowadays this celebrated book has turn out to be an must-read book for people who want to investigate philosophy. In short, although critics' explanation and propagation can produce some kinds of value, it has nothing to do with so-called "lasting value". 语言好的让我佩服的实在五体投地了....不过这里有一点需要探讨一下,在一段中出现意思的多次强烈转折好吗?会不会引起结构的混乱.

In the second place, critics exert certain influence on art work in form of evaluation and perform the role as a filter in our society. Nonetheless, their evaluations still can not produce any eternal value for our community. Here I concede that critics have more solid background than the masses, in their own fields. Whereas, common sense tells us that, in the realm of art, masterpiece often come from the emotion, imagination, creativity, originality, and passion of artists. In this sense, the professional knowledge is not the key factor to judge the achievement of one great work. As a result, history is replete with the cases that critics regard some masterworks as common and even third-class ones. For instance, the story of Monet and his world-famous work "Impression: Sunrise" immediately comes to mind. The critic who attended the show in which Monet exhibit his paintings did not understand and appreciate this "strange" work at all. Further, in his nasty review of the show, this critic wrote "Even the wallpaper in its initial state is much more finished than this landscape" and called Monet and his friends as "Impressionists". What is ironical is that just this ridicule gave Monet and his circle a perfect label for their powerful and unrestrained style. To be brief, it is clear that most critics appraise the art work in a way that can not promote any kind of lasting value.实在找不出什么问题来.PF中...

In the third place, as for me, the other function of critics, that is returning some comments and suggestions to artists so as to accelerate the growth of these artists, are still unrelated to any sort of long-lasting value, if not appears as an limitation. As we mentioned above, masters such as Monet and Kant are so outstanding that they have outclassed their coeval community quite a lot. Nevertheless, the critics, who can be judges as the representation of the contemporary society, certainly are not able to keep up with the pace of those masters. In this sense, their response for the art works, in most cases, performs as an restriction of the imagination, creativity, and originality of the great artists. One illustration shedding light on my point is the eighth symphony of Beethoven. It is universally acknowledged that, among Beethoven' works, bring little dedication. In fact, it is the comments of the coexistent critics who have suggested that Beethoven should return to the classic style of Haydn and Mozart driven the great man in this dilemma. In other words, the review of critics, do stand in the way of the growth of talented artist, rather facilitate their advancement.

To sum up, albeit critics indeed exert some influence on artists and their works, and these effects sometimes create certain value, there is no where more unreasonable on the allegation that these critics have bring our community some sorts of permanent value.


大牛的确是不一样...通篇几乎找不出任何错误...而且能在45分钟内写这么多东西...再次PFing....

大牛有时间看看俺的144,给点意见.

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;page=1#pid1734768

GuerreroUID：2123189

把范文中一段的三个论点扩展成了独立的三段,似乎有抄袭之嫌