0910G【Try Best】第一小组 issue144 by cababo

cababoUID: 2648869

issue144 "It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value."


Is it true that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value? In my opinion, the artist and critic together give society something of lasting value.

On one hand, the artist creates the works that contains the value. They are the ultimate producers of the value. There can’t be stunning buildings without architects. There can’t beautiful songs without musicians. There can’t be famous paintings without painters. For example, if it wasn’t for Picasso, where are the famous collages?

On the other hand, critics help to give something of lasting value to society. First, critics help to understand and interpret artists’ works. Some critics, who are familiar with an artist’s works or a certain kind of art, may see deeper than the layperson. Second, critics can help to distinguish between works with lasting value and those without. There evaluation serves as a filter among all the works by the artists. They can help us to save time and attention and help to discover and reserve the works with real lasting value. For example, if no critics found the value of Van Gogh’s works, all the pressure works will be forgotten and lose in the world. Thirdly, critics provide feedback and constructive suggestions for artists. Artists can thus improve their works.

To sum up, artists and critics together give something of lasting value to society. Artists are the people who create the works. Critics are those who reveal the value to society and help artists to create works of lasting value.

GG86_FlyUID: 2641450

Is it true that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value? In my opinion, the artist and critic together give society something of lasting value.

On one hand, the artist creates the works that contains the value. They are the ultimate（original?）
producers of the value. There can’t be stunning buildings without architects. There can’t beautiful songs without musicians. There can’t be famous paintings without painters. For example, if it wasn’t for Picasso, where are the famous collages?

On the other hand, critics help to give something of lasting value to society. First, critics help to understand and interpret artists’ works. Some critics, who are familiar with an artist’s works or a certain kind of art, may see deeper than the layperson. Second, critics can help to distinguish between works with lasting value and those without. There evaluation serves as a filter among all the works by the artists. They can help us to save time and attention and help to discover and reserve the works with real lasting value. For example, if no critics found the value of Van Gogh’s works, all the pressure works?? will be forgotten and lost in the world. Thirdly, critics provide feedback and constructive suggestions for artists. Artists can thus improve their works.(跟北美过于类似，我个人觉得不太好)

To sum up, artists and critics together give something of lasting value to society. Artists are the people who create the works. Critics are those who reveal the value to society and help artists to create works of lasting value

我个人觉得论证的时候可以参考北美，但是几乎差不多就感觉不太好了。可能切入点不一样，如果论证好了应该也可以吧。

yjwn1987UID: 2495078

附件

小红莓UID: 2641349

加油！

GG86_FlyUID: 2641450

1# cababo
I rewrite this issue, and appreciate to ask your opinion.
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=963614&page=1&extra=       in the fourth floor.