Issue144 [Jet小组}第六次作业

macross_36UID: 2306285

Issue 144  144"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.
The statement above asserts that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. I tend to agree with the statement. It is true that the critics can teach us how to appreciate and evaluate art but what they can do make little contribution to give society permanent value.

The chief reason why I agree with the statement is that, as we all know, rather than critics there are far more famous artists whose names and works go down in the annals of history. Take Beethoven for example, he is regarded as one of the greatest musicians all over the world in history. Some of his representative works are well-known to almost everyone who is fond of classical music. He has contributed a lot and left lasting value to music. There are countless critics who evaluate Beethoven’s works but few of them are known to us, not to mention the lasting value of their critique.

A second compelling reason of my agreement is that, critique is irrelevant to the lasting value and sometimes it is counterproductive for the artists to reach the achievement. Critique is to state the critic’s view after evaluating the woks of artists. A reasonable and rational critique can make a good art work to be valuable，however, critique itself is subordinate and it has nothing to do with the value of art. What is more, an unfair critique may cause us to ignore the valuable art works. For example, Voltaire rejected Shakespeare as barbaric because he did not follow the neo-classical principles. Thus, the value of critique is questionable.

Admittedly, critics can help us to understand and appreciate art. Since a critic is familiar with the specific artist he is studying, he may have some insights that the laymen do not have. Moreover, the critics can save our time by pointing out the valuable works from the ones that are not worth paying attention to. For example, we often see some critique about novels that are published recently. We can choose the very novel which is appropriate for us to buy by reading the critique. However, as I have claimed, critique has nothing to do with lasting value.

In sum, it is true that we can benefit from reading critique which is written by the critic but it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. Because few critics are regarded as great personage and critique is irrelevant to lasting value. What is more, some great art works and artists in history were treated unjustly because of unfair critique.

[ 本帖最后由 macross_36 于 2008-2-15 16:03 编辑 ]

leftkissUID: 2347956

字数：434
The statement above asserts that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. I tend to agree with the statement. It is true that the critics can teach us how to appreciate and evaluate art but what they can do make little contribution to give society permanent value.
开头赞！

The chief reason why I agree with the statement is that, as we all know, rather than critics there are far more famous artists whose names and works go down in the annals of history. Take Beethoven for example, he is regarded as one of the greatest musicians all over the world in history. Some of his representative works are well-known to almost everyone who is fond of classical music. He has contributed a lot and left lasting value to music. There are countless critics who evaluate Beethoven’s works but few of them are known to us, not to mention（let alone） the lasting value of their critique.

A second compelling reason of my agreement is that, critique is irrelevant to the lasting value and sometimes it is counterproductive for the artists to reach the achievement. Critique is to state the critic’s view after evaluating the woks of artists. A reasonable and rational critique can make a good art work to be valuable，however, critique itself is subordinate and it has nothing to do with the value of art. What is more, an unfair critique may cause us to ignore the valuable art works. For example, Voltaire rejected Shakespeare as barbaric because he did not follow the neo-classical principles. （加一下，Shakespeare的作品的lasting value比较好）Thus, the value of critique is questionable.

好！这段

Admittedly, critics can help us to understand and appreciate art. Since a critic is familiar with the specific artist he is studying, he may have some insights that the laymen do not have. Moreover, the critics can save our time by pointing out the valuable works from the ones that are not worth paying attention to. For example, we often see some critique about novels that are published recently. We can choose the very novel which is appropriate for us to buy by reading the critique. However, as I have claimed, critique has nothing to do with lasting value.

In sum, it is true that we can benefit from reading critique which is written by the critic but it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. Because few critics are regarded as great personage and critique is irrelevant to lasting value. What is more, some great art works and artists in history were treated unjustly because of unfair critique.

小结：
思路清晰，语言好～感觉进步很多，加油！！





[ 本帖最后由 leftkiss 于 2008-2-16 16:38 编辑 ]