ISSUE144 决战830拍砖组 19日作业 同主题高频狂练,请兄弟们狂拍

林森森UID: 163922

Issue144  让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
583 words
------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------
An artist, generally consider to be a unique and great man, who devotes all his life creating, has the magic to leave inerasable imagination from people generation by generation. Do the artists, who create art, or do the critics, who blame the failures of art, give society things of lasting value? Opinions among people vary significantly whilst I tend to agree the speaker, for reasons to do with the invisible value hidden in art, which is always out of the sight of the critics, and with the enduring characteristic of a primary creation.

The portraiture of Mona Lisa, the work of  Leonardo da Vinci, has witnessed the argument about artists and critics across hundreds of years. Mona Lisa itself, was inevitably carped by numerous critics. A typical example is that a famous critic and historian David Chamberlain in Birmingham, pointed out in l980's that the figure of Mona Lisa is not actually considered perfect in the ages of Da Vinci, which is a little plump; in addition, he indicates that the background was painted somehow heavily that the face of Mona Lisa fails to appear so glaring as it could be. After more than 20 years, the critic's claim had never rooted in our brain, instead of which, the perfection of the work of Mona Lisa has left a lasting value in our heart. Because, to certain extents, the argument of the critics is always much to subjective to convince the public. And hence it is hard to blame or overcast the original creations that are generally accepted.

There are numerous examples which can strongly support that it is artists who are able to leave the society enduring value. Les Miseables, a fiction written by Victor Hugo, a typical romantic author, which reflects the reality through touching words, has been popular among countless readers for more than a hundred years.  Hamlet is a even more apparent example. Though it was a tragedy written by Shakespeare several hundred years ago, it brought permanent influence till now. Rationally, it could be blame that the words as well as the thoughts are too out-of-date for us to read and admire, however, it does not prove so. Another similar example is the Bible, with abstruse words in it, is still the tops seller of all books though criticized by some believer of other religions. Judging from the three evidence offered, we may draw the conclusion that it is the very artists who left enduring value.

On the contrary, can we admit that critics play a more important part in giving the society something of lasting value? Probable not, I suppose. As has been discussed above, if the claim and blame really take the part of the original works, what are consequently left to the following generations? All blame to the life-devoted creations of our ancestors, and thus no great work can be preserved through even several decades, which is contradict to the reality.  For now there are countless works which are created extremely long ago, and on the opposite side, seldom do we learn that a work was dismissed by the society or lost its value for the controversy of a certain critic.

Overall, valid as the critics will for a permanent time exist with the artists, they will never play a more important role in leaving anything of lasting value than the artists, as the several main examples above have strongly suggested. Originally created by the artists, values are and will doubtlessly left by them.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-19 at 11:28 ]

caogenmanchiUID: 2127136

占个位
我也写了这篇，但很糟糕，准备改改再发上来。为此特意找了几个音乐系的MM

nanziUID: 2126362

我也试着来改改，晚上发上来，
占位，呵呵

caogenmanchiUID: 2127136

An artist, generally consider（被动） to be a unique and great man, who devotes all his life creating, has the magic to leave inerasable imagination from（这个From是怎么用的？弱弱地请教一下） people generation by generation. Do the artists, who create art, or do the critics, who blame the failures of art, give society things of lasting value? Opinions among people vary significantly whilst I tend to agree the speaker, for reasons to do with the invisible value hidden in art, which is always out of the sight of the critics, and with the enduring characteristic of a primary creation.

The portraiture of Mona Lisa（The portraiture of 可以去掉的）, the work of  Leonardo da Vinci, has witnessed the argument about artists and critics across hundreds of years. Mona Lisa itself, was inevitably carped by numerous critics. A typical example is that a famous critic and historian David Chamberlain in Birmingham, pointed out in l980's that the figure of Mona Lisa is not actually considered perfect in the ages of Da Vinci, which is a little plump; in addition, he indicates that the background was painted somehow heavily that the face of Mona Lisa fails to appear so glaring as it could be. After more than 20 years, the critic's claim had never rooted in our brain, instead of which, the perfection of the work of Mona Lisa has left a lasting value in our heart. Because, to certain extents, the argument of the critics is always much to subjective to convince the public. And hence it is hard to blame or overcast the original creations that are generally accepted.

There are numerous examples which can strongly support that it is artists who are able to leave the society enduring value. Les Miseables, a fiction written by Victor Hugo, a typical romantic author, which reflects the reality through touching words, has been popular among countless readers for more than a hundred years.  Hamlet is a even more apparent example. Though it was a tragedy written by Shakespeare several hundred years ago, it brought permanent influence till now. Rationally, it could be blame that the words as well as the thoughts are too out-of-date for us to read and admire, however, it does not prove so. Another similar example is the Bible, with abstruse words in it, is still the tops seller of all books though criticized by some believer of other religions. Judging from the three evidence offered, we may draw the conclusion that it is the very artists who left enduring value.

On the contrary, can we admit that critics play a more important part in giving the society something of lasting value? Probable not, I suppose. As has been discussed above, if the claim and blame really take the part of the original works, what are consequently left to the following generations? All blame to the life-devoted creations of our ancestors, and thus no great work can be preserved through even several decades, which is contradict to the reality.  For now there are countless works which are created extremely long ago, and on the opposite side, seldom do we learn that a work was dismissed by the society or lost its value for the controversy of a certain critic.

Overall, valid as the critics will for a permanent time exist with the artists, they will never play a more important role in leaving anything of lasting value than the artists, as the several main examples above have strongly suggested. Originally created by the artists, values are and will doubtlessly left by them.
恭喜恭喜！在语言和每段的论证上我很难提出问题，感觉你在向6分迈进！！！不过，从全文来看，在逻辑上有点问题，你开头同意作者的观点，那就是评论家不创造价值，但你的论证和conclusion却说they will never play a more important role in leaving anything of lasting value than the artists。你自己斟酌一下吧。

我的
Issue 103
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=322745

Argument 117
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=322736

[ Last edited by caogenmanchi on 2005-8-19 at 20:04 ]

林森森UID: 163922

呵呵 谢谢了!  好久没写ISSUE  严重超时了...

nanziUID: 2126362

By 林森森
Issue144  让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
583 words
------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------
An artist, generally consider to be a unique and great man, who devotes all his life creating, has the magic to leave inerasable imagination from people generation by generation. Do the artists, who create art, or do the critics, who blame the failures of art, give society things of lasting value? Opinions among people vary significantly whilst（应该是while吧） I tend to agree the speaker, for reasons to do with the invisible value hidden in art, which is always out of the sight of the critics, and with the enduring characteristic of a primary creation.

The portraiture of Mona Lisa, the work of  Leonardo da Vinci, has witnessed the argument about artists and critics across hundreds of years. Mona Lisa itself, was inevitably carped by numerous critics. A typical example is that a famous critic and historian David Chamberlain in Birmingham, pointed out in l980's that the figure of Mona Lisa is not actually considered perfect in the ages of Da Vinci, which is a little plump; in addition, he indicates that the background was painted somehow heavily that the face of Mona Lisa fails to appear so glaring as it could be. After more than 20 years, the critic's claim had never rooted in our brain, instead of which, the perfection of the work of Mona Lisa has left a lasting value in our heart. Because, to certain extents, the argument of the critics is always much to（改为too） subjective to convince the public. And hence it is hard to blame or overcast the original creations that are generally accepted. (这个例子举得挺好！！)
There are numerous examples which can strongly support that it is artists who are able to leave the society enduring value. Les Miseables, a fiction written by Victor Hugo, a typical romantic author, which reflects the reality through touching words, has been popular among countless readers for more than a hundred years.  Hamlet is a even more apparent example. Though it was a tragedy written by Shakespeare several hundred years ago, it brought permanent influence till now. Rationally, it could be blame that the words as well as the thoughts are too out-of-date for us to read and admire, however, it does not prove so. Another similar example is the Bible, with abstruse words in it, is still the tops seller of all books though criticized by some believer of other religions. Judging from the three evidence offered, we may draw the conclusion that it is the very artists who left enduring value.(文学家是否算艺术家??)
On the contrary, can we admit that critics play a more important part in giving the society something of lasting value? Probable（Probably） not, I suppose. As has been discussed above, if the claim and blame really take the part of the original works, what are consequently left to the following generations? All blame to the life-devoted creations of our ancestors, and thus no great work can be preserved through even several decades, which is contradict to the reality.  For now there are countless works which are created extremely long ago, and on the opposite side, seldom do we learn that a work was dismissed by the society or lost its value for the controversy of a certain critic.

Overall, valid as the critics will for a permanent time exist with the artists, they will never play a more important role in leaving anything of lasting value than the artists, as the several main examples above have strongly suggested. Originally created by the artists, values are and will doubtlessly left by them.

从文章结构上提一点小小的意见。
我觉得论证部分应该稍微作一下总结更好，当然，举的例子很好很有说服力，但是举例的意义是说明论点或分论点，所以这样更有条理性。
比如：如你文章中所说，从绘画和文学两个方面来正面论述，再作一下反面论述（第四段在这方面就很好），等等。
还有一个问题，open question, 题目中对critic这个词专门作了解释，是对艺术作品作评论（不一定是批评者）的人，而你在文章中似乎是以“批评者”来理解的。
文章的语言和例证很不错！

caogenmanchiUID: 2127136

上一楼：
我觉得论证部分已经很好了，总结也体现出来了。这可以参考明明的GRE作文综述的附录二范文No.2的六分作文。
当然，我水平有限，一点愚见，不揣鄙陋，冒昧发帖，还望见谅。